So for all their posturing and complaining, the leadership only got 53 of their fellow Democrats to vote for Terry Schiavo’s death sentence. The vast majority of the Democrats were smart enough to stay away from this one. 112 Democrats refused to vote at all.
This was brilliant. For 53 votes, they tar their whole party with the stench of trying to kill this poor woman. They define tone-deaf. And Howard Dean calls Republicans “brain dead.”
Which Dem is going to take the blame for this bright idea?
Re: Jeff Harrell post (March 21, 2005 11:04 AM)
Jeff, with due respect, you’ve dodged my question.
Forget the Schiavo case and all of its baggage for a moment. Here’s the nub and we’ll dispense with the advance directives:
Is it the method of death and its possibly painful protraction that bothers you most?
From what I have gleaned so far, your concern about the mode of death is a smokescreen and wholly irrelevant to your position. It serves as a nice debating addendum but somewhat conceals what you really believe. That’s fine and I respect that; it’s just that I’d like it spelled out so that I don’t misinterpret your position. Since the mode of death wouldn’t impact your ultimate position, why use it as a pier of your foundation to throw back at someone else?
JYT #2, the best medical evidence is also anecdotal. The diagnosis of PVS is fuzzy at best. It can’t be confirmed by any kind of test. It’s purely based on the judgment of the people standing in the room. And different people have reached different conclusions.
I think that the question of whether Terri Schiavo is conscious, in the way that most of us understand the term, is one that we simply can’t answer. Treating it like a dispute over facts is a mistake.
And no, my position is definitely not that Terri should be given, to use your phrase, “a lethal injection.” The question of whether doctors should be allowed to end the suffering of terminally ill patients is a whole ‘nother subject, one I won’t get into here. Because, you see, Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill. She’s not even sick. She’s disabled. And saying that it’s okay to kill disabled people … well, I don’t want to go all Godwin here, but we saw that policy enacted in Europe in the 1930s, and we consider it to have been among history’s greatest atrocities.
Forget the Schiavo case and all of its baggage for a moment.
All due respect: No. I’m not interested in spinning off into some wild, totally abstract discussion that has no connection to reality. I’ll leave that stuff to the philosophers.
Is it the method of death and its possibly painful protraction that bothers you most?
No. It’s the fact that we’re talking about killing a woman who is not even sick that bothers me most. It’s obviously more serious than but essentially equivalent to putting your dog down because you’re tired of paying for dog food.
However, the fact that that’s what bothers me most does not mean that it’s the only thing that bothers me.
From what I have gleaned so far, your concern about the mode of death is a smokescreen and wholly irrelevant to your position.
This may shock and surprise you, but I have many opinions about this case, some of which are even contradictory.
RE: Just Me post (March 21, 2005 11:12 AM)
OK. Fair points, all. We disagree on quite a few but I understand your position.
I think if a person has something in writing, then we should strive to abide by that document.
When it comes to oral directives, I think if the family members agree that that was the wishes, then you can probably trust that it was. But if famly members are in dispute over that fact, I think it is imperative that the government er on the side of caution and life.
I also think in the future that in any case where a person without a written directive is looking at death by any means, they should be appointed a permanent guardian ad litem to represent specifically their interests in the case.
I think much of this is reasonable though I dislike the way Congress has intervened.
At the federal Congressional level, we have an ends justifying means mentality in this case but there is a Constitutional framework handling this process despite unprecedented tactics. It would appear that the Constitution is being upheld so far and, in time, this will be resolved.
Thanks for the reply.
Godwin.
If I had been able to vote, I would have voted with the 53 Democrats, and I am the webmaster of http://bushsupporter.org and http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/. I do not think the Congress should have gotten involved to overturn a decision that had been fully litigated in state court.
If you want to see an example of where they should have gotten involved, see http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/03/unhooked-from-life-support.html
Pudentilla,
When Governor George W. Bush signed a law that allows Texas hospitals to end treatment to terminally ill patients (despite family opposition) after their insurance/medicare/medicaid funds ran out [The Texas Futile Care Law], was he promoting or undermining a culture of life?
In fact, he was promoting it. Existing medical practice in Texas was actually far more severe. Governor Bush wanted to restrict such plug-pulling practices further but that was the best bill he could get through. But again, had the bill not been signed, doctors would have been denying futile treatment far more frequently, not less. In fact, it’s quite telling that the recent case from Houston was the first real test of the law.
I’ll ignore your typical “culture of life” equals “spending government money and sticking it to corporations” arguments. Instead I will simply say that nobody who supports the Democratic party and therefore its pro-abortion position has no right whatsoever to lecture me or any other Republican on what constitutes advancing the culture of life. The phrase “pot calling the kettle black” doesn’t even begin to cover it. More like “the fetid pile of steaming horse shit calling a sweaty guy stinky”.
Instead I will simply say that nobody who supports the Democratic party and therefore its pro-abortion position has no right whatsoever to lecture me or any other Republican on what constitutes advancing the culture of life.
Woah, woah, woah. First of all, there’s no law that says that everybody who supports the Democratic Party has to be in favor of abortion. Just as there are lots of pro-choice Republicans, I’m sure there are lots of pro-life Democrats.
But more than that, I’m sick and tired of this “You have an opinion on this, therefore you can’t have an opinion on that” bullshit. People are hypocrites! Deal with it. We hold conflicting opinions. We contradict ourselves. We say this today and that tomorrow. This is universally true of everybody, and is not limited to one political group or another. It’s life. Pointing it out and saying “You are no longer entitled to speak on this subject” is a load of horse manure.
I’m so sick of people looking for excuses not to listen to each other.
Jeff I think you make some very good points, this is really not about a terminally ill woman, who is in the dying proccess, it is about killing somebody who is disabled to a point that we deem them no longer a person who deserves to live or has any right to life. Today it is the PVS patients, but the doctor who Greer most relied on in his decision thinks we should be starving altheimers patients and those who suffer from dementia. Are you guys ready for that slippery slope, or are you gonna deny that it is there, and only admit it once the cart is already headed down the hill.
Anonymous-sorry I wasn’t exactly directing my “vegitable” comment towards you, but others who seem to think that because she is severely brain damaged (and even PVS is just that brain damage, not brain dead) she has no personhood and no right to live. Although this may also be your position, then in that case you have been more tactful.
“And what harm exactly would be done, if Terri’s parents take her home to care for her?”
That is the crux of it all, really. Who does it hurt? Terri? We don’t know that. This is about her, isn’t it? If my information is correct then Terri has been denied chances, by her husband, to receive any “rehabilitative” care. That she may have responded to such care is forever lost if she is “allowed” to die.
The other point is what everyone keeps saying “we don’t know what her wishes are/were”. What is this stuff that it was the finding of the court that wer wish was to die? Based on what evidence?
Okay, I am not prone to quoting Rush Limbaugh, but I thought he made an excellent point.
This case really isn’t about Terri’s right to die. It is about Michael Schiavo’s right to kill her.
Terri is not terminally ill. She was not about to pass away, before the tube was removed. She is a severely brain damaged woman, whose parents want to take care of her. Her death isn’t allowing some natural proccess to take place, it is removing her food and water until she dies.
FloridaOyster,
I posted this already in another thread. Here’s your summary of findings from court records:
“Michael Schiavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence…The court reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo (brother) and Joan Schiavo (sister-in-law) and finds nothing therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding these discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination.” — so lets hear no more about how this is all based on the word of her husband. There are 3 (count them, three) witnesses to Terri’s wishes.
As long as we’re on the subject of what’s in the testimony, the whole next section is dedicated to how the court finds “beyond all reasonable doubt that Theresa Marie Schiavo is in a persistent vegitative state…with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses…the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegitative state.”
As I’ve said before, like it or don’t like it, but those are the court’s findings — Terri’s in a PVS; Terri’s wish would be to die in such a state. Don’t argue with me, argue with the American legal system.
“Don’t argue with me, argue with the American legal system.”
I would say instead “argue with the Florida legal system”
Which brings up the interesting point for this case, that Terri was never adequately represented in any of these hearings. Her only representation was the guardian ad litem who recomended against removal of the tube, because he didn’t feel the information provided on her wishes reached a clear and convincing standard.
I find it pretty scary that this woman is essentially sentenced to die, and has never had continuous representation, and what represenation she had recomended in favor of keeping her alive, and she doesn’t have any right to appeal (or have her gal appeal) in her behalf.
Criminals have more rights than she does. Every convicted criminal has a right to federal judicial review of their state court conviction. Terri has no such right.
Terri is being deprived of her life, but has never had due proccess.
Now that is a weakness in the courts themselves, but I find it appalling all the same.
Just Me,
Point taken about the Florida legal system, though this was appealed at the federal level and the courts saw no reason to intervene, so I think a case can be made either way. Still, it’s not me, however you slice it.
Your other assumption is where I think we differ. You view this decision as a death sentence. I view it as an affirmation of her right to determine her own fate. So far, all the courts agree with me. You claim she had no representation but, even from your point of view, I would think that her parents attempting to keep her alive would consist of that representation. Of course, from my point of view, it was her husband that was fighting for her rights.
So, from my perspective, she’s not being denied her rights at the moment, as hard as the federal government is working to take them away. Her rights will once again be denied if the tube is re-inserted.
If the courts had not decided that this was her wish, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Whatever you and Rush have agreed upon, if you read the case and the arguments, this is clearly a right to die case. You can disagree with the decision, but those are the merits of the case.
Oh one more for Jeff:
Jeff wrote:
Also, an advance directive would have no bearing on this case at all. A directive asking doctors to withhold food would never be honored. You can ask doctors not to give you heroic life-saving measures — like the use of drugs or devices to sustain your life after the point where your body has become incapable of sustaining itself — but you can’t ask doctors to starve you to death. That’s not what DNRs are for.
This is exactly wrong. Here’s the text of the Florida statute in question:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
“Life-prolonging procedure” means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
“You claim she had no representation but, even from your point of view, I would think that her parents attempting to keep her alive would consist of that representation. Of course, from my point of view, it was her husband that was fighting for her rights.”
Except this would actually be wrong. Her parents POV hasn’t had much legal standing, and they are not directly representing her interests. If you read the report from her guardian ad litem he mentions the issue of money clouds the objectiveness of both Michael and the Schindlers.
And I think it pertinent that the only person representing even remotely the rights of Terri Schiavo through this, was that guardian ad litem who recomended against the removal of the feeding tube.
I think it is absolutely appalling that a man who is already living with another woman, and then at that point decides to pull the feeding tube is given the right to make those decisions. Once he developed a relationship with another woman, at that point he gave up his right to make any decisions for her. Also, frankly when it comes to the money, Michael even then had more to gain, given that he wanted her dead and would have collected all of the money, if her parents were after the money, they still would have been paying some for her care-because they wanted her alive.
There were conflicts all over this case, and frankly, with this many conflicts, I think the government in its capacity should always er on the side of life.
I already asked this once, but who exactly is harmed, if Terri goes home with her parents, for them to care for her?
Just Me,
I guess you didn’t take my suggestion and read the court documents. You argue again that Michael made this decision, he shouldn’t be able to make this decision, etc. However, that is just not true. The COURT made this decision on behalf of Terri, based on the testimony, including that of her guardian.
You suggest having someone representing Terri’s rights. Unfortunately, at the present, she’s unable to present a preference of what she wants. It would be hard for this person to champion her rights unless they knew what she would have wanted. I believe that she would have wanted one thing; you believe another thing. One of the whole points of the court case was to determine what her wishes were, if she were to find herself in her current state. The case was tried, the determination was made, appealed, and reviewed several times, and that’s where we currently stand. I’m not sure why you don’t view the judge as being an effective arbiter of her rights, except for the fact that you didn’t like his opinion. The guardian that was appointed got to present his findings, but his determination was only based on his experience (i.e. he didn’t get to hear all the testimony before rendering his opinion of what was in her best interest).
Please answer the following question to let me know if you understand the legalities behind this case:
If Michael decided right now that HE wanted the tube re-inserted, could he make this happen?
To answer your question, the people who are hurt by this are as follows:
1) Terri — Her right of self-determination as found by the court would have been denied. You believe in erring on the side of “life”; I believe on erring on the side of personal freedom.
2) The people who champion these rights, myself included. I do have a living will and crazy parents who undoubtedly would argue strenously that I wasn’t in a PVC, even if all my cerebral cortex was spinal fluid. Believe me, I wouldn’t want your idea of an “advocate” for me at my determination hearing.
So, who, to turn it around, who’s hurt by letting her die?
Just Me wrote:
I think it is absolutely appalling that a man who is already living with another woman, and then at that point decides to pull the feeding tube is given the right to make those decisions. Once he developed a relationship with another woman, at that point he gave up his right to make any decisions for her.
How exactly would you write that law? I’m too lazy to look up the wording of laws that explicitly give spouses certain rights, but would you add “unless he is living with another woman and making babies with her” to such a law? Is there a time limit?
Also, frankly when it comes to the money, Michael even then had more to gain, given that he wanted her dead and would have collected all of the money
He waited six years after receiving the money before seeking to have her tube removed, during which time the money was being depleted for her care. If he was interested in only the money, wouldn’t he have sought removal of the tube sooner?
“If Michael decided right now that HE wanted the tube re-inserted, could he make this happen? “
At this point the answer is no, since the judge ordered the tube removed on Friday.
I still think the judge is wacked, and I still think that Michael Schiavo is an ass, and wanted his wife dead. I think his motives all through this are in question.
“1) Terri — Her right of self-determination as found by the court would have been denied. You believe in erring on the side of “life”; I believe on erring on the side of personal freedom.”
I actually disagree that the evidence was convincing that this is what she wanted. It is a disagreement on fact, but then this happens all the time. Just look at all the people who want the cop killer released, because they think that court was wrong. It isn’t any different, except that the burden of proof for the death sentence isn’t as strong as it would be in criminal court.
btw to be clear, if she had her wishes in writing, I wouldn’t feel strongly about this, where wishes are made in writing, I think the doctors should strive to follow the wishes in the written directive as closely as possible. There was no written directive, and there is disagreement over what terri wanted, the judge decided that terri wanted to die, I disagree, but once he decided that fact it was no longer reviewable (the appeals courts did not hear anything on that fact, most of them actually didn’t hear anything at all, since the opted to not take the case).
I have said in other places that the weakness here is in the law, and I think it is a huge hole. You right to die people want to kill a disabled woman, and that is scary, where do you draw the line at who gets to live and who doesn’t?
“2) The people who champion these rights, myself included. I do have a living will and crazy parents who undoubtedly would argue strenously that I wasn’t in a PVC, even if all my cerebral cortex was spinal fluid. Believe me, I wouldn’t want your idea of an “advocate” for me at my determination hearing.”
Since you have it in writing, you wouldn’t need a court hearing. Also, I am pretty certain I stated that you need the advocate only where there is a dispute between family members as to the wishes of the incapacitated person. If all the family agrees that they want something pulled there isn’t much reason to go to court.
Although I have huge issues with defining who is a person and worthy to live and who isn’t. I see a lot of that in these discussions and it scares me, because while today we are talking about somebody who is severely brain damaged, tomorrow we could be talking about somebody not quite so bad off, but who is an inconvienience, or whatever. This type of stuff is the begining of eugenics, and if you say it isn’t, it is already starting in Europe, it is only a matter of time.
“I’m too lazy to look up the wording of laws that explicitly give spouses certain rights, but would you add “unless he is living with another woman and making babies with her” to such a law? Is there a time limit?”
I am not a legislator, but I figure if they can manage to write tax law, they can figure out how to define a person who is living in what is essentially a common law relationship.
“He waited six years after receiving the money before seeking to have her tube removed, during which time the money was being depleted for her care. If he was interested in only the money, wouldn’t he have sought removal of the tube sooner?”
If you read the court documents you will notice that there was still over 700K in the bank, when he wanted to pull the tube. He hadn’t spent any of that money in the four years on therapy, that was part of the dispute he was having with the Schindlers. They wanted to know why Terri wasn’t getting any therapy, since the settlement was made.
Brian asked, “How exactly would you write that law?” (Regarding living with another woman and thus forfeiting control of the destiny of his wife.)
He should no longer have that control if he is living with (and in this case having children with) another woman. I’m not a lawyer, but there seems to be no problem with the courts determining when a common law marriage has been established. I think it actually does have to do with a time limit. So the law shouldn’t be too difficult to write since there is already a clear definition of common law marriage.
I’m sure living with a woman for years and having two children by her would legally be considered a common law marriage. It would certainly be grounds for divorce under normal circumstances. For the purposes of a case like this it could be easily shown that he had left his first wife and obtained another.
You’re still not allowed to have two wives in most Western societies. Why should Schiavo be allowed to have another family and, in effect, another wife, and still decide whether his first wife lives or dies?
Just Me wrote:
I actually disagree that the evidence was convincing that this is what she wanted. It is a disagreement on fact, but then this happens all the time.
Exactly. And how does one resolve a disagreement on fact? Isn’t that what judges and the appeals process are for? If you don’t respect the judiciary, what system would you propose in its place?
>>”If Michael decided right now that HE wanted the tube re-inserted, could he make this happen? “
>At this point the answer is no, since the judge ordered the tube removed on Friday.
Great and correct answer. A follow-up based on the answer you gave: When was the last date that he could have decided that he didn’t want the tube taken out and had that desire mean anything from a legal perspective?
>I still think the judge is wacked, and I still think that Michael Schiavo is an ass, and wanted his wife dead. I think his motives all through this are in question.
I realize that is your opinion, based on your belief system. Our opinions differ, and that’s probably as close as we’re going to get on that particular subject.
>>”1) Terri — Her right of self-determination as found by the court would have been denied. You believe in erring on the side of “life”; I believe on erring on the side of personal freedom.”
>I actually disagree that the evidence was convincing that this is what she wanted. It is a disagreement on fact, but then this happens all the time. Just look at all the people who want the cop killer released, because they think that court was wrong. It isn’t any different, except that the burden of proof for the death sentence isn’t as strong as it would be in criminal court.
OK, the system we have is what we have. Perhaps there’s a better one out there, but I don’t know what it is. My point is that we’re both uninformed on this matter relative to the judge. Personally, I think that what Congress did is an unconstitutional abuse of power, but if it’s upheld, I’ll accept it, because I don’t know as much about constitutional law as the judge deciding that case.
>There was no written directive, and there is disagreement over what terri wanted, the judge decided that terri wanted to die, I disagree, but once he decided that fact it was no longer reviewable (the appeals courts did not hear anything on that fact, most of them actually didn’t hear anything at all, since they opted to not take the case).
In all cases of appeal, the arguments are made by the appellant’s attorneys and then those are evaluated based on their merits. If the appellants didn’t appeal and contest this finding of fact, that’s their choice. The judge in the case can’t decide what’s open by a higher court to review and what’s not. However, I’ll grant you that once findings of fact are determined in a case, it is rare that they are overturned by a higher court.
>I have said in other places that the weakness here is in the law, and I think it is a huge hole. You right to die people want to kill a disabled woman, and that is scary, where do you draw the line at who gets to live and who doesn’t?
I draw the line at the same place that the court does. It found that she expressed a wish to die, if she was in such a state. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I didn’t hear the testimony and review all the evidence. If you had done that, I might have a little more respect for your opinion on this. As it is, you’re no better off than me
>>”2) The people who champion these rights, myself included. I do have a living will and crazy parents who undoubtedly would argue strenuously that I wasn’t in a PVC, even if all my cerebral cortex was spinal fluid. Believe me, I wouldn’t want your idea of an “advocate” for me at my determination hearing.”
>Since you have it in writing, you wouldn’t need a court hearing.
You’re right I wouldn’t need it or want it, but I might get it anyway. Living wills can be contested just like any other wills and often are. “Besides the problem of language ambiguity, living wills are also quite frequently contested by family members due to a reluctance in letting a family member die not of natural causes, but by the termination of treatment.”
http://otpt.ups.edu/Gerontological_Resources/Gerontology_Manual/LivingWills_Mitalas.html
>Also, I am pretty certain I stated that you need the advocate only where there is a dispute between family members as to the wishes of the incapacitated person. If all the family agrees that they want something pulled there isn’t much reason to go to court.
I know for a fact that my family would uniformly DISagree with my express wishes and fight tooth and nail to keep me alive at all costs, no matter my condition. So, I’d need an advocate to stand up for my right to die, and he’d better be pretty good, because he’d be in for a heck of a struggle. That’s why case law that makes it easier to prolong my life is definitely against my best interests.
>Although I have huge issues with defining who is a person and worthy to live and who isn’t. I see a lot of that in these discussions and it scares me, because while today we are talking about somebody who is severely brain damaged, tomorrow we could be talking about somebody not quite so bad off, but who is an inconvienience, or whatever. This type of stuff is the begining of eugenics, and if you say it isn’t, it is already starting in Europe, it is only a matter of time.
The case law change that is happening for me is pretty clear. This woman has been kept alive by challenges from her parents, long after the court decided that she wanted to die. All of these means could be used against me, in the same condition, even though I’m much better prepared. On the other hand, you’re relying on the extreme slippery slope argument, even though no case law here has made it any easier for a person to be killed against their wishes. Whatever is happening in Europe is not related to this particular case or Florida/American law. Eugenics? Thanks, Godwin.
Hi name is Sun Hudson. The Texas hospital removed his breathing tube last week over his guardian’s objections after the medicaid ran out. He was going to die anyway from a rare genetic disorder. His guardian just prefered that it not be on the hospital’s time scedule. His guardian’s wishes were utterly unavailing. His guardian was his mother. The Houston Chronicle has the story.
What’s the difference between Hudson and Schiavo? He’s an African-American infant whose single mom is very poor. All the “culture of white life” types were too busy last week to bother with his case – no special acts of Congress for kids like him. He was in Texas and subject to the Futile Care law signed by George W. Bush.
You’re welcome to your opinions, Julia and mcg, but you’re not entitle to make shit up and call it facts. Bush doesn’t give the ass of one rat about Schiavo or Hudson. And he despises the fools who believes he does. He’ll take their votes, but he holds them in utter contempt. And now, to get their votes for the 2006 elections, in flagrant contempt for core conservative political and legal beliefs, he has expanded the power of the federal judiciary and undermined principles of separation of powers and comity between state and federal government that have been central to Constitutional interpretation since 1796. Moreover, if we are to take Bush at his latest word, he has just created the political basis for the Democrats to insist upon medicare and medicaid end of life spending that will make the current budget deficit look like the product of sound financial planning.
And you parrot that “party of death” shit they feed you at NRO, incapable of independent thought, much less irony.
You asked “What’s the difference between Hudson and Schiavo?” and then you got the answer wrong.
The difference between Sun Hudson and Terri Schiavo, as you yourself explained, is that Sun couldn’t breathe on his own, and that he was being kept alive with a ventilator. Terri Schiavo is in perfect health, apart from her disability, and isn’t going to die of anything any time soon. Unless we let her starve to death, I mean.
You blew that one. Try again.
If we have anything to fear about the “slippery slope” argument, it’s from people like Jeff who consider Terri nothing more than “disabled”. Perhaps, then, we should issue Terri a handicapped parking permit for the hospital?
So now if Terri now dies because the feeding tube was removed.
What will the doctor write on the death certificate as the cause of death?
Think!
Terri is alive.
Terri has comitted no crime.
Terri is unable to speak for herself
Terri has been sentenced to death by starvation.
and.
Terri has had no legal representation.
An American Expat in Southeast Asia
I don’t understand, Brian. What do you want to call her? She’s not dead, she’s not even sick. She suffered brain damage which left her permanently — wait for it — disabled. What would you rather call her instead? What dehumanizing euphemism would you like to apply to her, so you can feel better about advocating treating her in a way that, if she were a dog, would get you arrested for cruelty?
Two points, I’d like to make.
First, it’s great to see commenters like Just Once, jyt and Pundentilla here, providing some truth and challenging the blatant lies that fill these threads.
Second, I feel Kos deserves the flack over the Bush Nazi-like pic he posted, which was arrogant, petty and reckless on his part.
However Paul, you do not have a f**king right to criticize him, having called Democrats ‘killers’ for doing what most Americans agree is proper in the Schiavo case.