Why? She's a living, breathing human fighting for her life. Given the way libs are coping; it's obvious that Bill Clinton should have been denied a "life-saving" heart surgery, right? And those with AIDS should simply be allowed to "die with dignity" -- and no assistance. And the next time another woman is battered, no one should help her.
But this all is a part of George Soro's great plan: Mr. Euthanasia, himself. How many times has he tried to pass Pro-Euthanasia initiatives in CA?
Years ago in CA, an ole pal, female, told me she had been planning to vote FOR Mr.Soros' last "euthanasia" attempt upon the CA voters. It kinda stopped me in my tracks. I asked her to sit with me for a bit. This woman had in past inherited a great deal of money from relatives. And due a bad, speed, dose had gone through a massive break from reality -- which took two years to get her back to "steady". Between her husband, myself, and the medical "people", she got stabilized. Yes, she was sleeping with tinfoil over her head. Yes, I was perpetually on call.
I asked her: "Hon? What if during that time you'd been declared permanently insane? And what if your husband declared you to be a vegetable? Do you think there's anyway the Euthanasia laws could be applied to YOU? A little money here, a little money there.. and perhaps a doctor could declare you unable to "live" apart from being in a hospital?"
She said to me: "Wow. I never looked at it like that..."
1 comment:
I have to say, Alia, that while I don't like Congress meddling in the affairs of citizens and their medical decisions, and that I didn't like the fact that this bill could not be used as a precedent for others in Terri's situation, I still supported the passage of the bill.
Why? There's something inherently wrong here. Terri's guardian is obviously not the best choice - he is not a person who holds her interests dear above all others. He has a girlfriend, and two children by her since Terri's infirmity. He has refused allowing therapy for Terri with the funds provided for that, and instead has used them for lawyer's fees in his effort to let her die.
Then there's that pesky deal about an insurance policy... information not being offered up voluntarily, and sealed for privacy.
One can't help but feel that Michael Schiavo could walk away and leave Terri's fate to her family and go on with his life easily enough. Therefore money must be playing a large part in his decision to stay involved, yet not involved, in her daily existance.
Frankly I do not understand why the parents, who surely have had Terri's interests at heart far longer than a husband from a short marriage of a few years, have not taken the husband to court to get him removed as guardian for a conflict of interest. Is there not sufficient evidence to show his intentions are flawed? His misuse of the funds for Terri's care? His denial of therapy? His insistance, quite late in the game, that Terri would have wised to die?
All these questions run thru my mind. And because I think his decisions for her care need to be addressed, I supported the jurisdiction being thrown to the feds... fully allowable as a Congressional remedy for recourse in the Constitition. I hope this federal review will take this under consideration.
For more insight... albeit admittedly pro-life for Terri... there is a website, Jews for Life that has alot of data about medical records, Terri's "last wishes", which Congress insists are quite clear, and other debatable notions. I highly recommend the reading.
IMHO, the Dems are crying foul and chicken little for whit. Yet heir party was overtly divided on the vote, leaving the radicals the obvious minority. It seems even their arguments for letting Terri die fell on deaf ears.
It's noteable that there was alot of Dems that didn't bother to show up. Over 100 of them to the Republicans 74-75 or so. And I'm looking foward to seeing who specifically are those who chose not to weigh in with their presence. Obviously they chose to run and hide from a tough issue. And that should also be noted. Was it for fear of what it would do to their political identity and standing? Or perhaps not to show such division within the struggling Dem party?
On other notes... trying to get back to some blogging! Oh my, have I been swamped with daily survival. My thanks for keeping up the MIA side of sea2sea commentary!
Mata
Post a Comment