The Husband.
A piece from NR a few years ago with some background on the Terri Schiavo tragedy begs the question - who really represents Terri's interests? Some astounding accusations, that, if true, would shame anyone siding with Terri's "husband". Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus weighs in and also recalls NPR's "evenhanded" treatment of this story.
Perhaps the most repugnant comment I've heard on this came from the none other than Ms. Maureen Dowd, who snickered on Imus this morning that Tom Delay and Bill Frist were acting out a sequel to "Weekend at Bernie's" - with Terry Schiavo as "Bernie". I glad that Ms. Dowd discovered the humor in this tragedy, high atop the Upper West Manhattan skyline, where the people below are just so many ants to burn with her magnifying glass.
2 comments:
T-Dawg:
Actually, there was a substantial sum of money - $1.3 million from the lawsuit, of which $750K was put in a trust for her care. (An aside: although I do not have a position on the tort-reform bill, I believe that it contains only a
cap on "pain and suffering" damage awards, and not awards earmarked for care.) Indeed, the "husband" promised to use this money to provide this care for the natural course of her life.
I am not arguing the correctness nor consistency of the President position on all of this - I am concerned that her civil rights are being violated. Yes, the "pecking order" default law in Florida is in effect. Nobody is challenging the legality of that, but there are extenuating circumstances, namely, that there has been evidence produced that Terri's "husband" is not acting in her best interests because of financial and personal conflicts. Judge Grier basically said that these issues were irrelevant, and the Florida appellate courts have ruled that there were no irregularities in the proceedings (which are what the appeals are about - they did not independently judge the original case). The Federal court system has now been directed to review this. This happens all of the time for other state rulings, and so is not that unusual.
I find it interesting that liberals who are so dead against states' rights on marriage regulation and parental notification and consent are now blasting the states' rights horn. Don't you? The federal government intervened in the early sixties when it was deemed that some expressions of states' rights were incompatible with the 14th and 15th Amendments - perhaps this is another example of this?
My dig about NPR was that they presented no point of view that suggested that even a life in PVS was perhaps a life of value. (bitterness on) I suppose to them, not being able to appreciate the quality of NPR is a valueless life.(bitterness off)
What is your point about how she will eventually die? That it doesn't matter whether she dies of natural causes then or we kill her now, because at this stage her life really has no value? Your reasoning may lead down the road to euthanasia.
Ill let you have the last word. But NPR is the Devil's Megaphone! ;)
Post a Comment