Yesterday the US House unanimously passed The Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005 – also known as “Terri’s Law II” – that will effectively save Terri Schiavo’s life before tomorrow’s deadline.
Today the bill, S.539, comes before the US Senate for debate and passage. Please contact your Senators and urge them to vote for “Terri’s Law II”.
We’re proud of the way the House acted, responding to the overwhelming voices of its constituents, to move the bill through so quickly. It’s exciting not only because it portends the hope of saving Terri’s life and getting her the therapy and treatment she has been denied for so many years. It also has the potential to energize America’s mainstream voters to see they don’t have to settle for the silly and sometimes oppressive decisions that certain judges create from whole cloth.
Most Americans want to make sure that good people occupy the federal bench, judges who will interpret the law and not impose their own radical opinions (or an estranged husband’s death wish for his disabled wife). So says a recent poll conducted by the Judicial Confirmation Network:
The survey also found 75 percent of voters agree that “President Bush should keep his promise made during the campaign to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice who will apply existing law, not make new law.”
And another poll finding:
Eighty-two percent of voters agree that “if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate,” the poll found.
The case of Judge Greer is not an isolated one by any stretch. However, the public scrutiny of the many injustices and unanswered questions in the Terri Schiavo case have helped to add attention to the problem of judicial tyranny across the nation. Next to saving a disabled woman’s life, that would be the best development to come out of this whole affair.
Yes, no one knows better whats best for this woman than the Government. Republican Nannyism at it’s finest.
How about her parents? And many of the health care aides who have worked with her personally? Or the many medical experts who believe she is not in a persistent vegetative state?
Or do you take the side of a neglectful husband who has neglected to provide her the most basic therapy for more than 13 years? And the judge who ignores a slew of evidence?
This isn’t about government “nannyism,” clever attempted use of rhetoric notwithstanding. In its most basic sense, this is about a culture of life vs. a culture of death.
If you prefer to discuss facts in evidence or the merits of the case, that’s fine. I’ll gladly discuss them. But if you willfully ignore the facts, there’s nothing that can be done.
This is about a culture of federal nannyism. What business does the *federal* government have in this? The Florida Supreme Court Edward Stockton says
Whatever it takes to stop the judges from hijacking the constitution and the republic must be done. At this point, nothing that brings the judges into line could be considered extreme. It is clear that some judges need to be proscuted for murder if not for violating Terry’s civil rights.
I no longer have any compassion for a judge who is injured or killed.