Remembering Terri Schiavo: A Five-Year Anniversary Marked By Cruel Bigotry

Townhall ^ | 3/31/10 | Bobby Schindler

[wagglebee]

March 31st will mark the five-year anniversary of the needless death of my sister, Terri Schiavo.

It is difficult to believe this much time has passed since that horrible event which will be forever seared into my memory.

I wish I could say things have changed for the better since my sister’s death or that people with cognitive disabilities are now better protected in response to the horror she had to endure.

Tragically, however, it seems the rights of the brain-injured, elderly and others are still being violated.

All one has to do is look at what happened just last week. On March 21st, Fox aired an episode of The Family Guy that featured a "sketch" called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." I was astonished at the producer’s cruel bigotry directed towards my sister and all cognitively disabled people.

Sadly, although more offensive than what my family has seen in the past from the media since Terri died, the bald-faced ignorance expressed in that episode of The Family Guy was nothing new. In fact, all signs indicate that we have embarked on a very disturbing path.

There is no disputing that Terri’s life – and death – had an astonishing impact on our nation. Our family still receives letters, emails and phone calls almost every day from people who tell us how Terri’s story touched them in profound ways, particularly when they come to know the facts.

Indeed, it was because of my family’s experience trying to protect Terri that we realized how all persons with similar cognitive disabilities are completely vulnerable to state laws that currently make it “legal” to deny them the most basic care – food and water.

This horrifying realization was why we established Terri’s Foundation. In Terri’s name, my family now works to protect tens of thousands of people with similar brain-injuries from having their fundamental freedoms taken away by an aggressive anti-life movement hell-bent on portraying severely disabled and otherwise vulnerable human beings as nothing more than “useless eaters”.

If the amount of phone calls we receive is any indication, what happened to Terri has become common. I think most people have no idea how our individual rights to make decisions about basic care like food and water, antibiotics, etc., have been so dramatically eroded. This not only includes family members advocating for loved ones but also protecting oneself by medical directive.

We recently heard from a woman whose mother was being cared for at a hospice facility. The daughter was powerless to effectively advocate for her mother because she had no power of attorney.

Even though she was her mother’s next-of-kin, and despite the fact her mother was begging her for food, the daughter was not allowed to feed her. It had been determined the mother was no longer able to swallow. But the daughter said her mother was eating safely just prior to being sent to hospice and questioned whether she still could. The mother was not given a feeding tube, and died just a short time later.

Perhaps the “Death Panels” Sarah Palin spoke of sounded like bombastic language. Yet when Palin added this term into our nation’s debate on health care, I believe she did not realize that many hospitals and facilities already have something frighteningly similar. Ethics committees are making many life and death decisions about patients, including whether to withhold simple provisions.

In a seemingly clandestine way, these ethics committees – comprised of medical and legal professionals – are empowering facilities to make life and death decisions independent of the family or a person’s own wishes.

The chilling stories we receive make it clear few citizens have any idea how vulnerable they are when it comes to judgments left in the hands of these ethics committees and facilities. And with the federal government now controlling our health care, there is no reason not to believe that these types of committees won’t become nationalized. Particularly when a health care system has been sabotaged by cost factors and quality of life judgments.

When our office receives phone calls from people fighting for their loved ones, I cannot help but look back and reflect on the courage of many individuals and groups who advocated on behalf of my sister.

As time has passed, however, many of those people, organizations and politicians – even many of our own friends – have fallen silent. Many who once ardently supported Terri’s life no longer actively educate or advocate for vulnerable patients.

With each troubling phone call from a frantic family, I am reminded there are countless other Terris in desperate need of our voice. Terri’s Foundation has been successful helping to save some, but sadly so many others have fallen victim.

I understand our nation faces many challenges today that may threaten our very existence. But how can we claim to be a just and honorable society, deserving of any blessing at all, if we richly reward hateful bigots while refusing to protect our weakest citizens?

Moreover, how did the tremendous courage and kindness we saw when we were fighting for Terri’s life have faded? How can any of us abandon this issue when all signs are that things are getting worse?

There are still many who support our efforts, who recognize the erosion of the value and dignity of the medically weak and who believe in protecting the life and liberty of all human beings.

The problem is their voices are often drowned out by the din of the pro-death lobby that claims death is the only dignified answer to a complicated problem.

Meanwhile the pro-death movement has not fallen silent. Rather, it has grown more vocal. The issue for them did not die with Terri. Indeed, their success in killing her seems to have only bolstered their determination to gain wider acceptance among the American people.

There will always be people with needs, there will always be others who work tirelessly to help them, and there will always be those who turn the other way; or worse – sit behind their drawing tables, disseminating cruel bigotry and hatred toward the disabled and vulnerable.

Until we all recognize that our inherit worth doesn’t change because of life’s circumstances, illness, disability or other events, we will continue to rob our most vulnerable of their right to fairness, justice and the ability to guide their own course in life.

[tuckrdout]

I guess she doesn’t realise that SHE is ‘just going to die anyway’ too.

I am afraid that many, many people think this way. Our state has legalized what they call, “death with dignity”...meaning if you choose to fight your cancer, you have NO dignity, I guess.

My mother in law has many health problems, and I am constantly afraid that one day her husband will legally kill her, if she gets to be too much trouble for him! He is a great believer in “sparing misery” to his animals and to people. Actually, he is sparing himself, masking it as compassion.

[wagglebee]

Kagan is 100% in favor of the culture of death.

Thread by Clintonfatigued.

Kagan Opposed Nationwide Ban on Assisted Suicide, Papers Show

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as an aide to former President Bill Clinton said that federal legislation criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide was a “fairly terrible idea,” according to newly disclosed documents.

Kagan’s hand-written note was included among 46,500 pages of records the William J. Clinton Presidential Library released yesterday. The documents shed new light on Kagan’s views on social issues including affirmative action, gun control and cloning.

The assisted-suicide note was prompted by Oregon’s 1997 enactment of a right-to-die law, which stirred an ultimately unsuccessful move by congressional Republicans to override the statute with a federal ban. In her note, after suggesting the possibility of Clinton backing such a law, Kagan immediately shot down the idea.

“This is a fairly terrible idea, but I know Begala likes it,” she said in the 1998 note, referring to Clinton adviser Paul Begala.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...

[wagglebee]

Peter Singer is absolutely gleeful about the prospect of killing humanity.

Threads by reaganaut1 and me.

Should This Be the Last Generation? (asks Peter Singer)

...

Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the Last Generation on Earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...

__________________________________________________

Princeton Philosopher: ‘Why Not Sterilize the Human Race and Party into Extinction?’

NEW YORK, June 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the world’s foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea?

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood.

A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book.

Singer explains Benatar’s antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: “everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.”

Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

“Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off,” he continued.

Singer distances himself from Benatar’s conclusions, however, and says, “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe.” Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer’s work, responded to Singer’s recent article, saying, “This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean.

“Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.”

“Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to ‘secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,’ to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all,” Smith wrote on his blog. “This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.”

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

[wagglebee]

The selfishness of this is repulsive.

Two threads by me.

80 British IVF Babies Aborted per Year

LONDON, June 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Figures released under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act show that an average of 80 children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other artificial means of artificial procreation, are being aborted each year in England and Wales. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates artificial reproduction practices, has revealed that some of those aborted were conceived by IVF treatments funded by the country’s tax-funded medical system, the National Health Service (NHS).

Former conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said that the figures showed children are being treated like “designer goods.”

“If the law was applied properly, people wouldn't be able to get an abortion just because they changed their minds,” Widdecombe said.

The figures show that about half of the abortions are performed out for mothers aged between 18 and 34, the age at which it is easier for women to conceive and carry children to term. The figures included those children aborted for “selective reduction,” in which one or more children are killed when too many embryos have survived implantation in the womb.

Prof. Bill Ledger, a member of the HFEA, said, “I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions and each one is a tragedy.”

IVF and other artificial means of procreation have been in use in Britain since the technique was pioneered with the birth of Louise Brown, touted in the media as the world’s “first” “test-tube baby,” in 1978. Since then, Britain has led the world in developing the new reproductive technologies, including cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos. The technologies have grown directly out of IVF research.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. By 1997, 1 in 80 children (1.2%) born in Britain was the result of IVF treatment.

__________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.: After IVF, Abortion? What Does This Say?

Just when you think that every imaginable dimension of the great tragedy of abortion has come to light, along comes a report that will stop you dead in your tracks. One of the most respected British newspapers has just revealed that approximately 80 abortion are performed in the UK each year, terminating pregnancies that came about by IVF treatments.

 

That’s right - on average, 80 British women each year abort their babies after having conceived them through the ordeal of IVF treatments. The British government, along with the British public, seems to be outraged at this discovery, made possible through the nation’s freedom of information rules. But, what is the basis of the outrage?

The Times [London] reported on June 6, 2010 that the discovery has shocked many in the medical community, but not all who are abortion providers. Professor Bill Ledger, a member of Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, pointed to the obvious: “These women can’t be surprised to be pregnant; you can’t have an IVF pregnancy by accident.”

Added to the scandal is the case that these abortions are classified as driven by “social” reasons. In other words, there is no medical issue at stake here. These are successful and healthy pregnancies that were sought by these women, even to the extent of seeking IVF treatments. Women who had sought such abortions after IVF told The Times that they decided after becoming pregnant that they just did not want to have the baby after all, that they terminated the relationship with their partner, or that the realization of impending motherhood was just too much.

Though there is a sense of outrage on the part of many in the public, it appears that much of the concern is financial, rather than moral. In its coverage of the scandal, The Times referred to the fact that “young women are having abortions on the NHS (National Health Service) after expensive IVF treatment.” In other words, the scandal is implied to be the waste of funds and the misuse of expensive and specialized high-tech fertility treatments.

Some observers responded to the report with no outrage at all. Ann Furedi, a prominent defender of abortion rights, told The Times, “Sometimes, it is only when women get pregnant that they can allow themselves to ask the question about whether it is really what they want.”

Come again? Ann Furedi appears to be saying that women need not even ask themselves if they really want to be mothers until they are actually pregnant. That assertion is about as morally shocking as can be imagined. Ms. Furedi also told the paper that she believes every abortion doctor sees at least one woman a year who seeks abortion after becoming pregnant through IVF technology.

Ann Widdecombe, a former Member of Parliament, said that women who abort after IVF treatments are treating babies as “designer goods.” On the other hand, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority insisted that it does not regulate abortions and sought to separate the IVF issue from the abortions in these cases. In an expression of classic bureaucratic banality, the HFEA said, “All patients who undergo IVF are assessed, as are the implications for any child that might be born, in advance of the decision to treat.”

Well, the “implications” for a significant number of these children are that they are killed in their mothers’ wombs.

What does this new scandal say about the human condition? In the first place, it tells us that we are turning ourselves into unabashed idolaters of the self. We are witnessing the elevation of personal autonomy, personal happiness, and personal fulfillment to levels that can only be described as idolatry. These women are seeking abortions just because they have decided they really do not want to be pregnant after all. Their concern is the solitary self above all.

Second, this scandal reminds us that the real issue here is the killing of innocent human life, and not the waste of expensive fertility treatments. The response to this report in some quarters is primarily about money, and not about the sanctity of human life. This fact alone should serve as a warning to us all.

Third, we must remember in light of this scandal that human dignity does not rest in any sense upon the circumstances of conception, but on the fact that every human being ever conceived is made in God’s image and is a life that is sacred and to be honored, protected, welcomed, and cherished. There are all too many women who conceive by natural means, only to make the decision to abort on the same basis as those described in this report. The scandal of the abortions sought after IVF treatments throws a dramatic light on the scandal of abortion itself. This new scandal just serves to make the murderous reality of abortion even more plain to see.

Americans should take note - we can be virtually assured that this scandal is present in this nation to a degree exceeding even what has been revealed in Britain. This nation lacks some of the protections and regulations found even in Britain. The United States is, as some foreign observers have noted, the “wild, wild West” of fertility treatments. Add to that fact the reality that women in the U.S. can demand an abortion for any reason or for no stated reason at all.

One might think that the most welcome place in the world for an unborn child would be the womb of a mother who would be so intent on getting pregnant that she would seek and undergo IVF fertility treatment. It turns out that in a significant number of cases, that assumption is proved wrong. How do we take the measure of that tragedy?

[bert]

she’s dead Jim

[wagglebee]

So much for "safe and legal and rare".

Thread by julieee.

Teenager Does Self-Abortion With Pencil, Boyfriend Buries Baby's Body

Teenager Does Self-Abortion With Pencil, Boyfriend Buries Baby's Body

Lehigh, PA (LifeNews.com) -- A 13-year-old Pennsylvania girl reportedly conducted a self-abortion using a lead pencil after her much-old boyfriend subjected her to statutory rape. The 30-year-old boyfriend, officials say, then buried the body of the dead unborn child after the abortion was completed.

http://LifeNews.com/state5163.html

[wagglebee]

I would love to see these ads in the United States.

Thread by me.

Unborn Baby Jesus Poster Campaign Launched by Protestant Consortium

LONDON, June 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As Marie Stopes abortion adverts continue to air this month on Britain’s Channel 4, a poster campaign featuring a picture of the unborn Christ child is being launched by a Protestant group to promote the “divinity and humanity of Christ.”

Advertising executives from the Church of England, Methodist, United Reformed and Baptist churches have banded together to produce the campaign in time for Christmas, saying, “There is no doubt that it will capture people's attention, generate headlines and create countless conversations about the true meaning of Christmas.”

The ads feature a composite of ultrasound pictures of a baby with the addition of a halo. The caption reads, “He’s on His way. Christmas starts with Christ.”

The campaign by the group ChurchAds.Net was inspired by a new custom in which parents give ultrasound photos of their unborn children to family and friends.

“Our new Ultrasound Jesus poster (pictured left) uses this convention to place the birth of Christ in an ultra-contemporary context,” the group said.

ChurchAds.net hopes to reach as many as 40 million people by displaying the poster ads on 2010 bus shelters around the country. The posters will be supplemented by radio commercials that are to be aired on 200 stations.

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the Times, “This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus.”

“I just hope and pray that this poster campaign has the effect of saving many lives. Let's promote it in every way we can,” he added.
 
Last month Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner said that with the airing of the Marie Stopes ads, there was no longer any excuse to forbid pro-life organisations from running their own TV ad campaigns showing the realities of abortion.

Permission from the Advertising Standards Authority for the Marie Stopes adverts, Warner said, “removes the last argument against pro-life organisations being allowed to broadcast images demonstrating the realities of abortion.

“The pro-abortion lobby is pleading the need for openness about abortion: fair enough, they should be taken at their word.”

Warner noted that in the past, television executives have censored election time broadcasts by the Pro-Life Alliance.

[wagglebee]

Any illusion that Crist was pro-life ended with Terri's murder.

Threads by Nachum and raptor22.

Crist takes down pro-life section on website

Hugging cherubic children, to win elections, used to be the norm, but not any more. Apparently, fewer babies mean a greater number of votes for certain politicians. In fact, Governor Charlie Crist, hoped to secure an open U.S. Senate seat in Florida by removing pro-life sentiments from his campaign website.

Newly minted Independent Charlie Crist has faith to believe that aborted babies could be the ticket that delivers him a hotly contested senate seat over conservative Republican rival, Marco Rubio and Democrat, Kendrick Meek.

Although conveniently pro-life for over a decade, Crist took down the sanctity of life section from his webpage. By doing so, Charlie sent a message of non-support for a controversial Florida bill that wants to provide the opportunity for women to see an ultrasound of their baby before deciding in favor of abortion.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

__________________________________________________

Gov. Charlie Crist Vetoes Anti-Abortion Measure Requiring Ultrasound

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Charlie Crist today vetoed a highly controversial bill that would have required women seeking abortions to pay for ultrasounds before undergoing the procedure, saying it would "violate a woman's right to privacy."

The veto sparked a firestorm of criticism from the Republican legislators, members of the governor's former party, who accused him of abandoning principle for political gain.

Crist, though, said that while people hold strong opinions on abortion, "personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."

"This bill presents an inappropriate burden on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy," the governor wrote in his veto message, likely his final one as governor.

The bill (HB1143), which passed along party lines in the closing days of the spring legislative session, would have required ultrasounds before first-trimester abortions, when more than 90 percent of abortions occur. The state already requires ultrasounds before second- and third-trimester abortions.

(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

[wagglebee]

Soon they will be saying that wanting to live lacks dignity.

Thread by me.

Dr. Mark Mostert: Final Exit Network Spin: It’s Not Killing, It’s Dignity

The Final Exit Network (FEN) is a radical pro-death group that counsels people and then helps them to kill themselves.

That’s why several of its members have been indicted by the Feds for their activities in Arizona and Georgia. Other investigations are ongoing.

No matter, FEN continues to spin the charges as unfair, harassing, and, well, un-American.

What twaddle.

The latest pro-death propaganda appeared in the Baltimore Sun a few days ago penned by Jerry Dicin, FEN’s president.

It’s a tour de force of manipulation, arrogance and outright dishonesty.

After noting that his FEN colleague Dr. Larry Egbert, is awaiting trial related to assisted killing in both Arizona and Georgia, Dicin launches into how Egbert was not complicit in murder, but was actually doing what doctors are supposed to do, and that this abominable behavior is a solution for people with Alzheimer’s Disease – both for the victims themselves and because it will spare their loved ones watching the progression of the disease:

By talking to these folks, Dr. Egbert was fulfilling his responsibility as a medical professional.

To understand why, consider the plight of those suffering from Alzheimer's [who] . . . can expect a slow, painful descent into advanced dementia . . .. Friends and family who are forced to witness their fall into oblivion suffer indescribably.

Given this bleak outlook, it's easy to see why some Alzheimer's patients choose to hasten their own death. It's also easy to see why Dr. Egbert was determined to help patients suffering from conditions like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease make this difficult decision.

It is time for the world to recognize the right and the rationality for mentally competent adults in such circumstances to take their own lives.

Just in case you missed it: How many people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s can be judged mentally competent? Well, they can’t, but that’s of little consequence to Dicin – making people dead is the ultimate goal, no matter what. In truth, the pro-death crowd don’t care about mental competence – they just care about death on demand.

Dicin then trots out the old horror line of pain and suffering:

That's your mother screaming in that bed, dealing every day with some terrible disease like Lou Gehrig's. She can look forward to a body that can't move, speak or swallow food, a life of total dependency on others for every act of maintenance.

Well, what’s the evidence here? The truth is that very, very few people’s pain at the end of life cannot be controlled by good palliative care and pain management. No matter, it’s the horror that’s meant to goad people into killing themselves.

Solution? Why, the good folks at FEN, of course!!!

That's where my organization, Final Exit Network, comes in. We provide information and counsel to patients who approach us seeking to deliver themselves from torture and make informed choices. The impetus comes from within them; we do not "encourage" anyone. We go to great lengths to ensure that the person is capable of choosing rationally.

Oh yes, those rational Alzheimer’s guys!!

But the preliminary reports of the Fed undercover sting showed much more: FEN advocates not even asking for proof that the victim had a terminal disease (or any disease, for that matter), and the inconvenient fact that the undercover agent was assured that once the assisted killing had begun, his FEN “guide” would hold his hands tightly enough so that he couldn’t change his mind and rip the gas mask from his face.

Without coercion, lies, spin, propaganda, and a healthy dose of narcissism, the pro-death crowd won’t win.

Unless, by remaining silent, we let them.

[wagglebee]

she’s dead Jim

Are you referring to Terri?

Of course she's dead, she was MURDERED.

Jesus Christ was also murdered, would you prefer that people no longer talk about Him?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[BykrBayb]

I thought trolls weren’t allowed on the Terri’s Dailies threads. I know some of the trolls and antifreepers who were properly dealt with on the infamous Bugzapper Thread have been allowed to return, but has it really gotten so bad that we’re expected to tolerate them on caucus threads?

[wagglebee]

but has it really gotten so bad that we’re expected to tolerate them on caucus threads?

The consensus seems to be that pro-life threads (including the Terri Dailies) threads can be a caucus if we choose to label them as such, but that most pro-life FReepers would prefer that they remain open.

Vanity About Possible Pro-Life Caucus

[BykrBayb]

My mistake. I thought Terri’s Dailies threads were caucus threads, and closed to comments by her enemies.

[Sun]

“U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as an aide to former President Bill Clinton said that federal legislation criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide was a “fairly terrible idea,” according to newly disclosed documents.”

Where’s this in the Constitution? Looks like we might have another activist justice, unless the Republicans filibuster successfully.

[wagglebee]

I don’t think the GOP plans to filibuster at all.

[Sun]

The GOP needs to hear from us that we want LEADERS, who are not afraid to FIGHT!

[Dante3]

bttt

[tuckrdout]

With a stone cold heart like yours, I would argue that you speak of yourself.

[tuckrdout]

“boyfriend”?? Ah, this man is a child predator; and should be in jail.