First: Her husband is a scumbag; I hope that Terry doesn't know that. I fear that she does. Poor woman. When Michael Schiavo filed that malpractice suit, he didn't mention Terri's wish to die.

Second: If starving and dehydrating people to death is so compassionate, then it is just impossible to see why Democrats spend so much time worrying about all the starving children, and, especially, accusing Republicans of wanting to starve children and the elderly. It is difficult to see how liberals complain that the U.S. sanctions against Iraq killed children by starving them to death. Never again, after this, ought Democrats to accuse Repuplicans of trying to starve children and old people as if it's a bad thing.

Three: I think we really need to know what happened the night before, or in the morning, Terri was found unconscious in her home. There was a violent argument the night before, and at least one person has asserted that she was planning to divorce her scumbag husband. (Interview with Barbara Weller [Schindlers' attorney](1st hour), Dennis Prager Show, (Mark Taylor, guest hosting), 21 March 2005.) I heard on the radio (either on Bill Bennet's show, Morning In America or Laura Ingraham) that the paramedics on the scene called the police to report a homicide; but I haven't had a moment to confirm this.

Four: Once again, Democrats demonstrate that for them, logic is simple: If conservatives are for it, then Democrats are against it. It seems to me that their goal has nothing to do with Terri, or right to die, or the privacy of the marital relationship. It's all about not allowing any kind, type, manner, fashion, or species of victory to the "religious right". The people trying to save Terri's life are--let's face it--those "pro-life fanatics" and no way are Democrats going to allow them a victory in this, or any other life vs. death, matter; and if Terri has to die, well, sacrifices must be made. It's right to die (i.e., culture of death) vs. right to life (i.e., culture of life).

Five: The Democrats' fellow travellers in the media insist on referring to Terri as being in a vegetative state, which she isn't. (Barbara Weller, "Last Visit Narrative," Fight4Terri, 20 March 2005.) This assistance is no doubt behind the polls which show that most Americans favor the removal of the feeding tube.

Six: Democrats love it when the fed usurps states' rights--until now. (You know, like when the Supreme Court usurps state authority in telling states that they cannot execute minors who are found guilty of capital crimes, or that they cannot prohibit abortion, or sodomy.) Suddenly, they are concerned out states' rights! As if these people really believe that states' rights trump the life of a single human being. Actually, I agree with Rush Limbaugh: what really has the Dems angry is having a court decision questioned; they believe in "government by judiciary." (Rush Limbaugh (2nd hour), 21 March 2005.) Democrats believe in judicial supremacy. (That's why they need to maintain control of judicial appointments.) The idea of having Congress questioning a court is anathema to them. (As long as they control the courts, of course.)

Seven: Democrats, who normally align with feminists, are concerned about the right of Michael Schiavo, a husband who has authority over his wife's life, to kill his wife.

Eight: Democrats are interested in everything about this matter--state's rights, sanctity of marriage, husband's authority, the supposed hypocrisy of Republicans, etc--except Terri Schiavo.

Nine: Michael Schiavo is going to get away with killing his wife, with the help of the judiciary. He has, if some nurses are to be believed, wanted her dead for years; and he is going to have his way. Thanks to the courts, of course.

Ten: I have been reading Walter Prescott Webb, The Texas Rangers, a history of the combination law enforcement/military organization up to the 1930s. Men like them would know how to save Terri from her husband and they wouldn't trouble the courts; and few would have what it would take to stop them, certainly not a black-robed, prophet-playing, egghead.

Eleven: Some--and we know where they stand--see what is happening to Terri as allowing her to die, not killing her. Some of these same people (James Carville?), I would bet money, have said that we (i.e., the U.S.) killed children in Iraq. No, we didn't actually kill them: our policies did; we allowed them to die. A policy is killing Terri. Years ago, I owned some property down in Texas. One of my tenants turned part of my land into his own person landfill. The county health department notified me that I was soon to be charged with creating a health hazard. When I informed the health department that, although I would see to it that the "landfill" was cleared, I did not believe that I had created the hazard since I never, at any time, in any way, gave my permission for any of my tenants to create a landfill and it was done without my knowledge, I was informed that I was liable because the law stipulated that one "shall not suffer, permit or allow" a health hazard to be created or to continue to exist on his property. "Suffer, permit or allow" was tantamount to creating the hazard myself! I do not see how anyone can not, logically, see that "sufferring, permitting and allowing" (in fact, requiring by judicial order) that Terri Schiavo be deprived of food and water until she dies is killing her. What, after all, is the difference between, say, telling a guilty man, "You shall be hanged from the neck until you are dead," and telling him, "You shall be deprived of food and water until you are dead"? Both are death sentences.

Twelve: It would be nice to know what was the "convincing evidence" that Michael Schiavo gave to Judge Greer, which made Greer confident about Terri's desire to die. I hope when this is all over, some journalist writes the story of how Michael Schiavo finally succeeded in using the courts to get rid of "the bitch". In fact, that journalist could title his book, All The Scumbag's Judges: When and How "The Bitch" Finally Died. (The subtitle is a reference to an assertion by CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.,, in her sworn affidavit, that Michael wondered aloud, at least once, when "the bitch" would finally die.)

Finally: Nothing in this blog should be understood as communicating that I believe that Michael is, as of yet, actually guilty of anything. HOWEVER, some of the claims in many of the affadavits do lead me to believe that the matter should be heard de novo. (They also lead me to question either Judge Greer's ability as a finder of fact, or her legal counsels' ability.) I do not take them at face value, but they have not so much as been examined and cross-examined in a trial. This much at least should take place. And if some of the assertions about Michael are discovered to be in fact true, then the man ought to go to jail. It is his obstruction of every move that her parents make that have me angry with him. In the same shoes, and even with a living will and durable power of attorney, I would grant my in-laws as many second and third opinions as they could pay for. And I wouldn't try to keep them from having a day in court. We would, after all, be talking about their beloved daughter!