No Neutrality

How Does McCain Explain This?

Wow. Can you say "unwanted"? How does John McCain square his call for support from the base with bitter disparagement of members of that same base?

"I understand the frustrations a lot of Republicans feel," McCain says. "We're not representing their hopes and dreams and aspirations. We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why? The Republicans will vote one way, and the Democrats will vote another, and everybody knows it! It's pointless. I've never seen Washington as polarized as it is today."

Which reminds him...

"I would never say this publicly, but some of these talk-show hosts -- and I'm not saying they should be taken off the air; they have the right to do what they want to do -- I don't think they're good for America."

Which brings him to...

"I urge my friends who complain about the influence of the religious Right, get out there and get busy. That's what they do! Now, if we believe in the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the big-tent party, then we have to get out there and show that. The fact is, some of us have sat idly by while those very active people have basically set the agenda for our party. I get attacked every day because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done!"

HT Free Republic

Get The Facts Straight

A comment was left by "Mike" who, after making his accusation, failed to substantiate his claim with any facts, a common practice of Leftists, it seems.  He asserts that President Bush, as Governor of Texas, signed a bill then that makes him a hypocrite in his stand on Terri Schiavo now.  I have just two things to say to that kind of comment.

First, it shows what kind of persons people like Mike are, that they are so uncaring, so hardhearted and hateful, that they are more concerned with President Bush's consistency than they are with the life hanging in the balance.  Putting aside whether or not Bush signed whatever in his days as governor, what does that have to do with whether or not Terri Schiavo should be consigned to a bitter and cruel death?  Answer: Nothing.  But it just shows how extreme and hateful some people have become in their Bush-hatred.  Even the cruel death of someone who probably has never even met President Bush doesn't merit attention, just whether or not BUSH is consistent.

Secondly, since he raised the question, I looked it up.  Apparently, "Mike" gets his facts from the New York Times which, these days, is something like an attractive young woman accepting a drive over a bridge from Ted Kennedy...but I digress.

The 1999 Advanced Directive Act, we are told in yesterday's NYT,

"...allows for a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.

If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.

The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker -- as has happened in the Schiavo case -- although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.

For the willfully obtuse and thickheaded "Mike's" out there who like a child that has lost the argument, rocks itself murmuring "Bush lied! People died! Bush lied! People died!", let me emphasize the key portions.  Let me give you something else more instructive to chant:  TERRI'S NOT ON LIFE SUPPORT! TERRI'S NOT ON LIFE SUPPORT! and add to it this, "MICHAEL LIED SO TERRI DIED!"

Read the article closely and note that this act

• Deals with people on LIFE-SUPPORT and Terri, for the MILLIONTH TIME, IS NOT ON LIFE-SUPPORT.  She needs assistance eating and, there is evidence she could receive food orally without needing a feeding tube if she had therapy but MICHAEL SCHIAVO WON'T PERMIT THE THERAPY
• Attempts to adjudicate a dispute between the caregiver (doctor or hospital) and the guardian.  Terri's situation is a dispute between family members.  Regarding her so-called PVS situation, she hasn't even had some of the most rudimentary testing like an MRI
• Gives the guardian disputing with the treatment the option of moving their loved one TO ANOTHER LOCATION IF THEY DISAGREED.  Terri's parents are not her legal guardians and thus they don't have that luxury
• Even Bush's critics in the article admit that this law wouldn't apply to Terri Schiavo's case!!

So please, if you have a bone to pick with President Bush, by all means, take it up on your blog, but don't come here demeaning and further diminishing the humanity of a woman being executed publicly for the crime of being inconvenient to a callous husband by papering over her murder with cheap shots at the President. 

Save that for the "paper of record."

The Cries Of A Mother Go Unheard

I can't say much more than what's here.  The full 11th U.S. Court of Appeals refused a rehearing for Terri Schiavo.  Terri's mother is quoting as saying,

"When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death," Mary Schindler said outside the hospice. "Please, someone out there, stop this cruelty. Stop the insanity. Please let my daughter live."

So read this, all of you that say it's a matter of State's rights and other such stupid wrangling.  Go down to Florida and explain to Mrs. Schindler why Terri needs to die and die in such a bitter and awful manner.  God have mercy on the soul of a person who can read this and not cry.

Oh Lord, hear and save!

The Right to Kill

Thanks to Thomas Sowell for an excellent argument, as usual.

If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill.

[...]

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

[...]

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

[...]

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

I Have An Idea

You will recall the beyond barbaric videos of several beheadings of captives of Al Zarqawi in Iraq.  I can't help but draw the parallel between those pitiful and merciless deaths and what is being done to Terri Schiavo.  I wish I could take video of every day that passes between now and Terri's cruel death.   I'd like to juxtapose pictures of her agonizing and struggling with shots of Congressman Wexler, pontificating about preserving the integrity of our system of government. I'd like to contrast scenes of Terri's body convulsing and her cries of pain with Democrat Senate Minority leader Reid waxing indignant about the "intrusion" of the federal government into private family matters.  I'd like to put side-by-side, images of Terri dying with a clip of lawyers like Irwin Chimerinsky whining about the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.  I'd end this short video with large print words slowly appearing on a freeze frame of Terri's last moment--Vote Democrat? I'd show that video in every Catholic and Protestant Church that would air it.

From the usual suspects in Congress to bloggers on the Left, I'm no longer amazed to see the lineup.  Doesn't it tell you something when I can predict, from a huge distance off, what position your average Leftist will take on this and pretty much any situation regarding the preservation of life?  Watch them go through the most ridiculous contortions to try and justify their position guaranteeing Terri's death.  These same people who to this day laud the federal government for forcing integration on the States are all a' twitter because the Congress, using its Constitutional authority, attempted to intervene on both Terri and her parents' behalf.  It's all so unbelievably shameful and evil.

To the elected majority, I ask, "Will it be acceptable to God to say, 'Lord, we couldn't do anything! Our hands were tied!  You see, we tried to pass some quick legislation, but the judges just kept ruling against us!'"?  If I have any amazement left in this matter, it's that a majority of elected officials could seem so impotent to save one person's life.  But then again, I shouldn't be.  A country that sanctions the murder of its most innocent and defenseless through abortion probably can't muster the courage to stop the death of Terri Schiavo. 

No Neutrality

I hear a recurring argument from those on the Left who are opposed to saving Terri Schiavo's life.   On more than one occasion, I've heard those rooting for Terri's death talk about the federal government "intruding into a private family matter" as if the "family" had unanimously decided to end Terri's life and the government heard about it and stepped in.  That's not the case, and those championing death know it.

The fact is, it's Terri's parents who are disputing with Terri's ex-husband.  I say "ex" because Michael Schiavo has long since begun a new relationship with another woman, by whom he has 2 children.  Can you get anymore "family" than parents?  How is the government then "intruding"?  If anything, the government is supporting a family decision--the decision to save Terri Schiavo's life.

A woman who is severely brain-damaged, but not dying, is being denied the option of going to live with her parents...HER PARENTS...who have promised to caretake for her for the rest of her life.  A man, her husband in name only, who is already left Terri's bedside for another woman, claims that Terri didn't want to live like this.  (He has yet to explain if she wanted to die like this, but that's another matter.)  For this, the Left is angry?

This is the same Left that wants the Federal government to intrude on racial preferences laws, sodomy cases, abortion and so on, but now, for some odd reason, waxes passionately eloquent on State's rights and so on.  Don't be fooled.  It's nothing new to see the fallen human heart turn to the laws of men as a way to duck out of the Law of God.

Mark 7:9-13 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! ¹⁰ For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' ¹¹ But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)- ¹² then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, ¹³ thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

This is a time of testing.  The frog is in the pot and the temperature has now reached an uncomfortable degree but many Christians are still saying, "Well, this is just one case..."  I'm sure there were many Christians and Jews who said the same before Kristallnacht in Hitler's Germany.  Christians need to stand up and be counted.  You can't opt out of this conflict because eventually the conflict will come to you.

You can be sure that today it is mostly the political Left that is the primary agent for remaking our culture in the image of man, but tomorrow it might be the "conservative" movement you walk with today.  My appeal to you is to prayerfully become more engaged in the political process than you ever have been.  Make those phone calls, send that e-mail, participate in that rally.  Make your voice heard in this generation.   

So christian, WAKE UP. Those of you who until now have refused to see the alignment of the agenda of the Left with the godless darkness that has been advancing upon our culture surely can't miss this object lesson.  It really isn't a choice between political movements that disagree over things indifferent (like what form of taxation we ought to use--flat or progressive).  What became indisputably obvious over the last 15 years or so is that it is a clash of worldviews.  It is a struggle between a worldview that hates God and a worldview that acknowledges His Truth.  There is no neutrality.

UPDATE:

Even Rush Limbaugh gets it.

Terri and the Constitution - Mercy, not Sacrifice

It's funny to me how liberals didn't mind when the federal government stepped in to ship Elian Gonzales off to a communist country, and they were all for Roe v Wade being decided for the states by the Supreme Court, and who cares what the states think about gay marriage, but God FORBID the federal court step in to save someone's life. Now we MUST "protect the constitution."

Aside from the fact that this move by Congress is completely constitutional, similar to the feds sending in troops to enforce civil rights legislation (would that they would do that!), all I have to say is this:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.  (Mt 12:1-13)

Response to the Average American on Schiavo

First of all, amen to Steve's last post. If you haven't read it, please do so.

Secondly, I wanted to respond to a reader named Mark who made some comments that I think are pretty representative of a lot of Americans on this issue right now. Here's what he said:

First, I am pro life but has anybody put themselves in Teri's[sic] position?
Confine yourself to a bed, cut off ALL communication, and depend on others for everything but the air that you breathe. Imagine that life for a once active person. Sounds like fun, huh. Been there. I knew I was going to recover and it was still miserable. Look at everyone's view first[emphasis mine].

Mark, I think the reason so many people are for "letting her go" is precisely because they are unable to truly put themselves in her shoes. They assume that because "I wouldn't want to live that way" that Terri doesn't either. They assume that there is only one "quality of life" that is worth living, and Terri's can't possibly be worth it. It is the height of arrogance to assume that your "quality of life" judgment is better than Terri's. Isn't it quite possible that to Terry living is better than dying?

But beyond that, the point you are missing is that killing someone simply because they want to be killed does not justify that killing. If you make a pact in writing with your wife, a written contract that says she is to kill you in your sleep, do you think that if she follows through that a court will not still convict her of murder? In our society, killing people without just cause (capital crime, war, self-defense) is illegal. So even if she did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live in this state, it simply doesn't matter. We have never sanctioned killing innocent people in this nation, and we don't want it to start now.

You mention your own miserable recovery time. To that I say, "so what?" So what if you were miserable? In fact, so what if you had to spend the rest of your life bedridden? Do you really think you'd rather die? If so, I doubt you truly understand yourself and your own instinctive will to survive, let alone someone else's, so you can stop lecturing us about walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

In Terri's case, however, we are not simply turning off a respirator attached to a brain-dead patient. I would have no objection if we had been artificially keeping her alive all this time. But Terry is being kept alive in the same manner that you or I are kept alive, by feeding and sheltering. She is not brain-dead; she is semi-responsive. You should do some reading and disabuse yourself of the ignorant notion that she is "cut off from ALL communication." She laughs, cries, expresses displeasure and pain. She recognizes people greets them in her own brain-damaged way, and was visibly upset at hearing what was going to happen to her. If you come to the conclusion that it's OK to kill her, you can't logically have many objections to killing the retarded or the severely disabled (take Stephen J. Hawking for example), because who wants to live like that? No, in Terri's case they are quite simply killing someone who would otherwise live, not just stopping the needless perpetuation of an already dead body.

Lastly, you say you are "pro-life," but are you sure you understand what pro-life means?

Outrage Over Terri

There just seems to be more and more to be outraged about Terri Schiavo's situation. A reader at Wittenberg Gate found that at some point Terri was doing some walking and talking after they received money from the lawsuit. I would like to know more about this. If true, this is completely outrageous.

I'm rarely at a loss of words when it comes to rage, scorn, or just plain criticism, but my outrage has surpassed my ability to express it. However, in the words of one of Dory's readers, "Damn, their court orders!!! Her blood will be on their hands!"

Yet to many, it's just a sad necessity that she simply has to die. The chasm between the world-views here is just staggering. For example, while to sane people Terri's LIFE is the issue, ding-dongs at Daily Kos are worried about her "body image" and the irony that having struggled with eating disorders she is now being starved to death. The writer then waxes compassionate about how awful it is to not be satisfied with your body. You guys keep talking about what matters.

Schiavo - Time to Act

Now is the time if you are in any way able, to get involved via physical action in Terri's case. Let me be perfectly clear that we are not advocating violence or anything of the sort. But what's wrong with thousands of people going to Florida to make their presence and protests known? They are murdering a woman who cried today at hearing the news that her tube would be removed:

Attorney Barbara Weller was with Terri earlier today. She told the media that, during her visit with Terri, she explained to her what was happening. According to Weller, Terri began to cry and could not be quieted. She tried to coach Terri to say "Let me live" but she simply was having too much difficulty.

This comes during a tug-o-war today between the U.S. Congress and judges in Florida. It's been an eventful day. First the subpoenas, then Judge Demers postponed pulling the tube, and the Judge Greer re-ordered it again. Clearly there is a conflict between Federal authority and a state court, and given that there is a subpoena in effect, I think someone may be in trouble:

"It is a contempt of Congress to prevent or discourage someone from following the subpoena that’s been issued," David Gibbs, the attorney for Terri Schiavo’s parents, said this morning. "What the U.S. Congress is saying is, ‘We want to see Terri Schiavo.’ "

At any rate, the tube has now been pulled, an apparently painful and unnecessary action since it could simple have been capped.

Lastly, Terri was asked twice when being served the subpoena whether she wanted to live and was able to say "yes."