Comments About Excuses From Those Who Opposed a Bill to Save Terri's Life
Last night, Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz complained on Fox News and CNN that the American people "lost" because of Congressional intervention. It is really sad that this Congresswoman feels Congressional action giving a woman who is suffering through a painful period of starvation and dehydration a POSSIBLE chance is a "loss" for the American people. (Of course, in her defense, I'm sure she simply fails to believe Terri has any ability to feel anything. Of course, some who are pro-abortion insist babies feel nothing when they are suctioned out, when their limbs are torn off, when they are burned in a saline abortion, etc.) Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz said on the House floor that there is "factual evidence" that Terri would not want to be kept alive. Her idea of "factual evidence" consists only of alleged verbal statements to a few individuals, most particularly Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo (a man who has had children by another woman while married to Terri). Personally, my idea of "factual evidence" consists of nothing less than a WRITTEN statement. It really does not cause any problems for anyone to keep Terri alive. There are some who doubt she made the statements she is alleged to have made. I fail to see why keeping Terri alive is such a problem for certain people.
Those opposed to Congressional action giving Terri another chance of life complained about Constitutional issues. Last night, someone called in to CSPAN and pointed out that the FIRST AMENDMENT provides the ability of people to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." See http://www.usconstitution.com/Read.htm for a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Those who oppose Congressional intervention on "Constitutional grounds" perhaps might want to brush up on the First Amendment?
It is also quite sad that some of the Congresspeople argued about processes while a woman is dying a slow and horrendously painful death based on HEARSAY by a man who has had children by another woman while married to Terri. Extraordinary situations like these require extraordinary peaceful actions such as intervention by Congress.
Those who opposed Congressional action giving Terri another chance of life, who in my opinion show that they have no problem seeing a woman suffering and dying based on HEARSAY argued that Congress should not get involved in family matters. First, the FAMILY disagrees. One side wants to keep Terri alive and avoid having her suffer a horrible, painful death. Another side, which includes a man who has had children by another woman while married to Terri, wants her to die slowly through starvation and dehydration. Looking at (warning, this is explicit content) this entry from Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia, this is what Terri may experience if her feeding the remains out for very long.
Furthermore, I wonder if those who argue about "family privacy" are this concerned when it comes to so-called "sex education" in schools? Clearly one would hope they might be consistent. Schools should not be introducing students to artificial contraception, which only makes it easier to commit sexual immorality.
Those opposed to Congressional action stopping this horrendously painful procedure because of HEARSAY say the courts in FL have the final say. They argue "states' rights." Yes, a court where a state judge IGNORED a Congressional subpoena. The FL Supreme Court tossed out a law the FL Legislature put forth to help Terri. A court where Judge Greer ruled that the parents cannot provide food orally to Terri once the feeding tube was mercilessly removed (if she did not swallow, this would only help MICHAEL'S case!). A court where the judge has not even personally visited Terri Schiavo.
As to "states' rights," these were used to justify SLAVERY in the past. Would those who talk about "states' rights" want to apply that to abortion? Afterall, if Federal legislation was signed into law giving states the rights to CHOICE in whether or not to allow abortion, some might make a CHOICE to ban abortion. Sadly, I have no hopes for consistency on their part. Yes, if such legislation was passed, I'm sure the courts would nullify it. But there is nothing wrong with taking a CONSISTENT position, regardless of what the courts will do.
Those who argued in favor of NO action by Congress, allowing the status quo, allowing a woman to suffer and die needlessly because of HEARSAY, complained that this was a bill designed for just one person rather than a broad bill. As Congressman Sensenbrenner eloquently stated, this bill for one person was due only to the fact that some Senators forced it to be that way. The original bill was INTENDED to be a broad-based bill which was not aimed at any specific individual.
Some of those who argued in favor of NO Congressional action to save this woman's life talked about costs. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might give up their annual raise. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might choose to vote against any pork barrel spending, even that which benefits their own districts. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might argue against government waste on contraception, abortion, etc.
Another excuse given was "we are not doctors" or "even if we are doctors, we haven't examined Terri personally." Well, DOCTOR David Weldon, a Congressman, tried to visit Terri Schiavo. He was not allowed to do this. I don't understand. If Terri is in a "persisten vegetative state," letting a Congressman visit her would have HELPED Michael Schiavo's case. It may have ENDED the case for her parents and siblings. But for some strange reason, Congressman and DOCTOR David Weldon was DENIED access according to his statements last night on the House floor.
In any event, here is the list of those who voted for, against, or did not vote at all. Let's note that while more Democrats voted AGAINST the bill than voted for it, the number who voted for it NEARLY equaled the number who voted against. But remember, five Republicans also voted against the bill. Blogs for Terri will be creating a Wall of Shame listing all of the names of those who voted against this bill.
Regardless of what happens with this case in Federal court, we should continue to ask Congress to ENFORCE the subpoenas. Congress NEEDS to consider broad legislation to help others in this situation. Terri and Michael Schiavo, along with Terri's family, Greer, and Felos need to come before Congress to be questioned in my opinion. They will provide valuable insight to the crafting of broad legislation. Furthermore, the subpoenas have already been issued. They need to be ENFORCED.
Those opposed to Congressional action giving Terri another chance of life complained about Constitutional issues. Last night, someone called in to CSPAN and pointed out that the FIRST AMENDMENT provides the ability of people to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." See http://www.usconstitution.com/Read.htm for a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Those who oppose Congressional intervention on "Constitutional grounds" perhaps might want to brush up on the First Amendment?
It is also quite sad that some of the Congresspeople argued about processes while a woman is dying a slow and horrendously painful death based on HEARSAY by a man who has had children by another woman while married to Terri. Extraordinary situations like these require extraordinary peaceful actions such as intervention by Congress.
Those who opposed Congressional action giving Terri another chance of life, who in my opinion show that they have no problem seeing a woman suffering and dying based on HEARSAY argued that Congress should not get involved in family matters. First, the FAMILY disagrees. One side wants to keep Terri alive and avoid having her suffer a horrible, painful death. Another side, which includes a man who has had children by another woman while married to Terri, wants her to die slowly through starvation and dehydration. Looking at (warning, this is explicit content) this entry from Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia, this is what Terri may experience if her feeding the remains out for very long.
Furthermore, I wonder if those who argue about "family privacy" are this concerned when it comes to so-called "sex education" in schools? Clearly one would hope they might be consistent. Schools should not be introducing students to artificial contraception, which only makes it easier to commit sexual immorality.
Those opposed to Congressional action stopping this horrendously painful procedure because of HEARSAY say the courts in FL have the final say. They argue "states' rights." Yes, a court where a state judge IGNORED a Congressional subpoena. The FL Supreme Court tossed out a law the FL Legislature put forth to help Terri. A court where Judge Greer ruled that the parents cannot provide food orally to Terri once the feeding tube was mercilessly removed (if she did not swallow, this would only help MICHAEL'S case!). A court where the judge has not even personally visited Terri Schiavo.
As to "states' rights," these were used to justify SLAVERY in the past. Would those who talk about "states' rights" want to apply that to abortion? Afterall, if Federal legislation was signed into law giving states the rights to CHOICE in whether or not to allow abortion, some might make a CHOICE to ban abortion. Sadly, I have no hopes for consistency on their part. Yes, if such legislation was passed, I'm sure the courts would nullify it. But there is nothing wrong with taking a CONSISTENT position, regardless of what the courts will do.
Those who argued in favor of NO action by Congress, allowing the status quo, allowing a woman to suffer and die needlessly because of HEARSAY, complained that this was a bill designed for just one person rather than a broad bill. As Congressman Sensenbrenner eloquently stated, this bill for one person was due only to the fact that some Senators forced it to be that way. The original bill was INTENDED to be a broad-based bill which was not aimed at any specific individual.
Some of those who argued in favor of NO Congressional action to save this woman's life talked about costs. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might give up their annual raise. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might choose to vote against any pork barrel spending, even that which benefits their own districts. If they are truly concerned about costs, I would hope they might argue against government waste on contraception, abortion, etc.
Another excuse given was "we are not doctors" or "even if we are doctors, we haven't examined Terri personally." Well, DOCTOR David Weldon, a Congressman, tried to visit Terri Schiavo. He was not allowed to do this. I don't understand. If Terri is in a "persisten vegetative state," letting a Congressman visit her would have HELPED Michael Schiavo's case. It may have ENDED the case for her parents and siblings. But for some strange reason, Congressman and DOCTOR David Weldon was DENIED access according to his statements last night on the House floor.
In any event, here is the list of those who voted for, against, or did not vote at all. Let's note that while more Democrats voted AGAINST the bill than voted for it, the number who voted for it NEARLY equaled the number who voted against. But remember, five Republicans also voted against the bill. Blogs for Terri will be creating a Wall of Shame listing all of the names of those who voted against this bill.
Regardless of what happens with this case in Federal court, we should continue to ask Congress to ENFORCE the subpoenas. Congress NEEDS to consider broad legislation to help others in this situation. Terri and Michael Schiavo, along with Terri's family, Greer, and Felos need to come before Congress to be questioned in my opinion. They will provide valuable insight to the crafting of broad legislation. Furthermore, the subpoenas have already been issued. They need to be ENFORCED.
posted by cw @ 3:07 PM
<< Home