Ezekiel Emanuel: Biden Definitely Had Cancer During Presidency, Probably for Years

🚨 HOLY SMOKES! Dr. Zeke Emanuel just went on MSNBC and told Morning Joe that Biden DEFINITELY had cancer during his presidency - IN 2021!

In other words - IT WAS HIDDEN. Scarborough is SHOCKED.

JOE: "This is NOT speculation [right?] He had it when he was president?"

EMANUEL:… pic.twitter.com/wqCZjslNlU

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 19, 2025

Biden's condition was hidden from the American people. There is no way Biden's medical team didn't know.

The Democrats' war on truth is self-destructive.

Ezekiel Emanuel - Biden's COVID Task Force

This guy is on @JoeBiden’s Covid task force. pic.twitter.com/nLzLjuSX4q

— Matt Rinaldi (@MattRinaldiTX) November 9, 2020

If the media were honest and actually informed the American people with the truth, the Democrats would be resoundingly rejected.

Ezekiel Emanuel: Shut Down the Country for 12-18 Months

Ezekiel Emanuel is a really creepy guy. He was one of Obama's top advisers, the brain behind ObamaCare.

He's advising Joe Biden, too.

Emanuel wants the country to be shut down for 12-18 months. According to Emanuel, we can't go to work or live our lives until there's a vaccine to combat the Wuhan coronavirus.

This is lead Biden advisor. Have fun running on that one. pic.twitter.com/oGX01lhl0W

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) April 7, 2020

I'm sort of surprised that Emanuel wants a shutdown until a vaccine is developed.

Emanuel is big on rationing health care. He believes in withholding care from the very young and the very old.

Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the "Complete Lives System" as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

Read The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009.

Look at this chart. Determining whether to permit medical intervention on a curve?

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system



Since the Wuhan coronavirus is more deadly among older individuals, I'd expect Emanuel to promote allowing the virus to "eliminate" these "burdens" for the good of society.

Suggesting that the country be shut down until a vaccine is available runs counter to his plan to withhold medical care for the elderly.

Whatever is driving him in this case, Ezekiel Emanuel is positively ghoulish.

Bloomberg: Deny Health Care to Elderly

Bloomberg explaining how healthcare will “bankrupt us,” unless we deny care to the elderly.

“If you show up with cancer & you’re 95 years old, we should say...there’s no cure, we can’t do anything.

A young person, we should do something. Society’s not willing to do that, yet.” pic.twitter.com/7E5UFHXLue

— Samuel D. Finkelstein II (@CANCEL_SAM) February 16, 2020

This is why government health care, a single payer system, would be a disaster.

It's why Michael Bloomberg should never be president.

Vote for Scott Walker

Pass this video on to everyone you know. It’s our closing argument: Wisconsin is working. We can’t afford to turn back now! pic.twitter.com/T9FkiUb2v5

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) November 5, 2018

We’re just a few hours away from the polls opening! RT if you’re ready to Get Out and Vote to keep #WIWorking for the next four years! Find your polling place by visiting https://t.co/eEOFaAjLUk and encourage your friends and family to join you.

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) November 6, 2018

What a great way to end the day in Waukesha! Thank you to all those who hosted us, to supporters who turned out, and to all who stopped to talk with us on our statewide tour! Let’s all go vote to move #WIForward tomorrow! pic.twitter.com/dvZFhGuObo

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) November 6, 2018

Look around you. Look at how dramatically Wisconsin has improved thanks to Governor Scott Walker's reforms and policies.

Electing someone like Democrat Leftist Tony Evers would not be in your best interest.

Do you want higher taxes and jobs to leave Wisconsin? If you do, then vote for Evers. He'll raise your taxes and destroy our state's economic renaissance. If you want to keep Wisconsin moving forward, then vote for Scott Walker.

Three words: Foxconn. Foxconn. Foxconn.

Vote for jobs, not mobs.

Vote for Scott Walker.

Do you want a single-payer government-run health plan, with no choice, long lines, and rationing of care? If you do, then Evers is your candidate. If you want quality health care that will cover pre-existing conditions, then vote for Scott Walker.

If you care about your Second Amendment rights and the right to life, you must vote for Scott Walker. Tony Evers is fighting against those rights.

Do you want school choice and educational opportunities for all? Do not vote for Ever, enemy of school choice. Vote for Scott Walker.

We need Scott Walker as governor of Wisconsin.

Do not be complacent. Vote for Scott Walker.

Vote for Leah Vukmir

It’s all on the line tomorrow. We need to get out and vote for our kids, our grandkids and for prosperity! With your help at the polls, we can do it! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/ILGLf3kE9a

— Leah Vukmir (@LeahVukmir) November 6, 2018

The choice tomorrow is clear. It all boils down to trust. #wisen pic.twitter.com/7jcjyzNLuP

— Leah Vukmir (@LeahVukmir) November 6, 2018

I trust Leah Vukmir to represent me in the U.S. Senate.

Vote to stop Democrat Tammy Baldwin and her Leftist destroy Medicare and establish a single-payer, government-run socialized medicine plan, that necessarily includes the rationing of medical care. If you're worried about losing your health care, do not give power to Democrats. Vote for Republicans, like Leah Vukmir, to protect you.

Mark my words: Pre-existing conditions will be covered, and unlike @TammyBaldwin, I’ll do it without dismantling Medicare or kicking 3.4 million off their employer insurance. Under my plan, you’ll see the doctor and receive the care you choose. I will not gamble with your health.

— Leah Vukmir (@LeahVukmir) November 5, 2018

Vote for prosperity. Vote to support your freedoms. Vote pro-life.

Vote for Republican Leah Vukmir.

UK Government Condemns Alfie Evans to Death

The government in the United Kingdom has determined that Alfie Evans does not have the right to live.

This is the line of defense making sure that little Alfie Evans does not leave the British hospital where he has been sentenced to die. pic.twitter.com/IOd1J6NYhp

— Thomas D. Williams (@tdwilliamsrome) April 26, 2018

David French writes:

How? How does a nation reach a point where it will essentially kidnap a child from a loving, functioning family, yank that same child off life support, deny him care as he unexpectedly fights to stay alive, and then block attempts by a foreign government to rescue him and provide him top-notch care free of charge? How does a great civilization sink to such barbarism and tyranny?

There are two stories one could tell — one about policy, the other about philosophy. The policy story traces events like the nationalization of health care, the evolution of family law, and changing doctrines of individual liberty. It is far less important. Policy flows from philosophy, and the philosophy of government is the central reason for the monstrous injustice in Great Britain.

...The state exists to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Both are in play here: Alfie’s life and the liberty of his parents to in good faith and with due consideration make health-care decisions on behalf of their sick child. Raised against the backdrop of American liberty, there are millions of Americans who understand this reality almost instinctively, without knowing an ounce of constitutional law. Their very spirit rebels against Great Britain’s actions.

But there are now millions of secularized Americans who have a quite different worldview, as well. The religious element of the founding rings false and hollow to them. They find that the very concept of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” should be subordinate to human-defined morality, which — when stripped of its theistic elements — places even the right to life up for debate. While there are many secularists who revere life and treasure the founding values, there is nothing inherent in secularism itself that protects individual liberty.

With no God over the state, the state then becomes not the defender of liberty but the definer of liberty. You have no freedoms except those bestowed by the state, and those freedoms are defined entirely by the various branches of government. There is no inherent parental authority. There is no inherent right to life. There is only the justice the state gives according to the standards the state dictates.

...Consider what’s happened in Britain. Rather than defending a right to life, the state has decided to define which lives are worth living. Rather than protecting the rights of the child only when the parents have manifestly failed, the state has decided that it is the greater, better parent.

The fact that the UK government has the power to prevent parents from taking their child to Italy for medical treatment is terrifying.

This is what those of us against ObamaCare and government-run health care fear and, obviously, with good reason.

Remember talk of death panels?

The state has determined Alfie Evans should die. End of story.

If you withheld water from your brain damaged toddler, you'd be brought up on child abuse charges. If a British hospital does it, it's just "dying with dignity."

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 26, 2018

________________


Read: Ezekiel Emanuel: COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM

Charlie Gard R.I.P.

"Our beautiful little boy has gone. We are so proud of you Charlie" - parents pay tribute to son Charlie Gardhttps://t.co/Nq366jr4zl pic.twitter.com/GpGQcL1lAb

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) July 28, 2017

The government refused to allow Charlie Gard's parents to pursue all avenues for his medical care.

It's heartbreaking.

From August 12, 2009:

ObamaCare means rationing of health care services.

Obama dodges and weaves on that, trying to avoid admitting that care will indeed be rationed.

He, of course, doesn't want the public to understand what government-run health care would really entail.

At his alleged town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday, (actually, it was more like a campaign rally), Obama extolled the wisdom of "expert health panels" and their role in government-run health care.

OBAMA: In terms of these expert health panels -- well, this goes to the point about "death panels" -- that's what folks are calling them. The idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we've got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take -- these aren't going to be forced on people, but they will help guide how the delivery system works so that you are getting higher-quality care.

Obama touts the judgment of these "expert health panels."

One such "health expert" is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a top adviser to Obama.

Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the "Complete Lives System" as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

Read The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009.

The complete lives system 

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving. Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients' health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Objections

We consider several important objections to the complete lives system. The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Legitimacy

As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like the UNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are difficult to understand, easily corrupted, or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test.

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions on its own. Although fair procedures are important, substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation.

Conclusion

Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system



Emanuel, WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE POLICY ADVISER, has some very scary ideas about who's fit to live and who's life has been full enough.

Look at the chart. Determining whether to permit medical intervention on a curve?

Should older Americans be concerned about this? I think so. The very young are also targeted.

At his event in Portsmouth yesterday, Obama tried to convince Americans that rationing won't occur under his single payer plan.

But we've seen how socialized medicine works. It doesn't raise the standards of care for everyone. It creates scarcity. Quality care? Forget it.

Obama mocked opponents who point out that a government-run health care system bent on trimming expenses will mean cutting services.

OBAMA: Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various -- there are some variations on this theme.

The Complete Lives System does "pull the plug on grandma."

Emanuel is an "expert" Obama admires.

As Obama said in Portsmouth, "[W]e've got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations."

These same experts also will provide guidelines to doctors about what procedures will not be allowed.

Remember what Obama said on ABC during his health care infomercial in response to this question from Jane Sturm:

OBAMA: We're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system, that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs, that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

If the "expert health panel" deems certain treatments not cost effective, the government will be pulling the plug on "grandma."
_________________

Related post:

Ezekiel Emanuel: 'Thinking has Evolved'

Pope Francis says he prays for "little Charlie" Gard's parents and "all those who loved him" https://t.co/tmu50nkXK8

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) July 28, 2017

I entrust little Charlie to the Father and pray for his parents and all those who loved him.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) July 28, 2017

Ezekiel Emanuel: 'You Don't Need a Doctor'

I don't know why the White House sends out Ezekiel Emanuel to promote ObamaCare. The guy is a terrible spokesman.

Here's video of Zeke's latest statement exposing the nightmare of ObamaCare:

Ezekiel Emanuel and Chris Wallace (Video)

Thank you, Chris Wallace.

Thank you for demanding that Ezekiel Emanuel, ObamaCare mastermind, give a straight answer to a simple question.

If you like your doctor, can you keep your doctor, as Obama promised a million times?

Here's video:



Emanuel tried his best to slither out of answering Wallace's question. He failed.

Emanuel insisted, "The president never said you are going to have unlimited choice of any doctor you want to go to."

No kidding.

Emanuel tried to slide by Wallace's question again, but Wallace wouldn't allow it.

Wallace asked, "Did [Obama] say if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"

Emanuel responded, "Yes, but, look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice."

With all due respect, that's just stupid. Emanuel has to be the worst possible spokesman for ObamaCare. Obama NEVER said anything remotely like that when he was selling his Leftist plan to the American people.

Listen to Obama.

OBAMA: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage. They like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means, no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

Where's the part about paying more to keep your doctor, Zeke?

This really makes me so mad.

Team Obama should STOP LYING!

Obama lied to us.

Obama is a liar.

Emanuel is so sleazy, just like his boss.

Ezekiel Emanuel, James Capretta, Chris Wallace (Video)

Team Obama is making a terrible mistake by sending out Ezekiel Emanuel as its mouthpiece.

Grim Reaper Emanuel is incredibly rude. He's a terrible mouthpiece for Obama, but that's just his demeanor. His ideas are really scary.

Fact: Obama is a liar.

Fact: ObamaCare is a disaster.

Ezekiel Emanuel and Megyn Kelly (Video)

Ezekiel Emanuel promotes terrifying health care policies.

This "architect" of ObamaCare holds views about medical intervention that many of us would consider positively barbaric.

For example, Emanuel writes, "[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

In effect, Emanuel believes members of "expert panels" are fit to determine the value of one's life. Is it worth saving? Is it worth making the investment of providing health services?

Do you really want the GOVERNMENT, a massive centralized system, to hold that sort of power over you and your loved ones?

Read Ezekiel Emanuel: COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM.

This chart sums up Emanuel's system:

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system



Yes, health care on a curve.

Watch Megyn Kelly's interview with Emanuel.

They don't discuss Emanuel's extreme, frightening plans. They focus on the disastrous rollout for the most part.



The healthcare.gov website is only the beginning of American life under ObamaCare.

The worst is yet to come.

Terri Schiavo: Terri's Day 2012

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the seventh anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."

Unbelievable.

For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obviously, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this seventh anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.
_________________

Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2012.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, in collaboration with Priests for Life, announces the, "International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Schiavo, and All of Our Vulnerable Brothers and Sisters," (Terri's Day!), which will be observed each year on March 31, the anniversary of her death.

Activities for Terri's Day:
Suggested Activities for Individuals, Parishes and Schools For Terri's Day 2012!

---Say the Prayer in Remembrance of Terri daily, the week before and after Terri's Day.

---Hold a Memorial Service and/or Mass on Terri's Day.

---Conduct or participate in a parish or school essay contest about what happened to Terri, and the issues surrounding care for the disabled and their right to life.

---Create and publicize a website in honor of Terri.

---Invite a speaker to your school, parish, or community organization to address issues surrounding the care of the disabled.

---Organize a letter writing campaign in remembrance of Terri by one or more individuals to local papers or blogs.

---Spend time volunteering at a nursing home or hospital.

---Spend time with a disabled friend or relative.

---Write to or visit elected officials regarding legislation that would increase protection for people facing circumstances like Terri did.

---Fill out, and make others aware of the "Will to Live".

---Register to vote and participate in elections. Challenge candidates on their views regarding Terri and those who face the same challenges and dangers she did.

Obama: War on Women Email

I've been getting lots of fundraising emails from the Democrats focusing on the alleged War on Women.

Daily, they send something out.

Here's one from the king himself:

Friend --

As we count down to another critical fundraising deadline for this campaign, it's important to remember this:

We always knew this election would be about two competing economic plans -- whether we get to build on our progress or see it taken away.

But we had no idea we'd also be up against a social agenda that would roll back decades of progress, particularly for women's health.

That means the consequences of this election will be felt in more ways than we'd counted on -- and what you do this week will help decide what they are.

Will you donate $3 or more right now?

https://donate.barackobama.com/March-Deadline

Thank you,

Barack

"But we had no idea we'd also be up against a social agenda that would roll back decades of progress, particularly for women's health."

The only roll back that would affect women's health IS ObamaCare.

OBAMA: If you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

With all due respect, that's a lie.

Government-run health care will directly impact women's health.

Nothing looks more like a War on Women to me than Obama's panel of alleged "experts" determining who lives and who dies, who receives health care and who is denied.

I don't want government bureaucrats coming between me and my doctor.

Oh, that's right. I may not get to keep my doctor.

Bottom line: There is a War on Women's health. Obama is leading the charge.

No $3 for you, Obama.

Terri Schiavo: Terri's Day 2011 - Life and Hope

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the sixth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."

Unbelievable.

For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obviously, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this sixth anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.
_________________

Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2011.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, in collaboration with Priests for Life, announces the, "International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Schiavo, and All of Our Vulnerable Brothers and Sisters," (Terri's Day!), which will be observed each year on March 31, the anniversary of her death.

Activities for Terri's Day:
Suggested Activities for Individuals, Parishes and Schools For Terri's Day 2011!

---Say the Prayer in Remembrance of Terri daily, the week before and after Terri's Day.

---Hold a Memorial Service and/or Mass on Terri's Day.

---Conduct or participate in a parish or school essay contest about what happened to Terri, and the issues surrounding care for the disabled and their right to life.
Create and publicize a website in honor of Terri.

---Invite a speaker to your school, parish, or community organization to address issues surrounding the care of the disabled.

---Organize a letter writing campaign in remembrance of Terri by one or more individuals to local papers or blogs.

---Spend time volunteering at a nursing home or hospital.

---Spend time with a disabled friend or relative.

---Write to or visit elected officials regarding legislation that would increase protection for people facing circumstances like Terri did.

---Fill out, and make others aware of the "Will to Live".

---Register to vote and participate in elections. Challenge candidates on their views regarding Terri and those who face the same challenges and dangers she did.

_________________

Terri Schiavo: Five Years Later

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the fifth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."

Unbelievable.

For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obvioulsy, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this fifth anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.
_________________

Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2010.
_________________

Here's a statement from Wisconsin Right to Life:

"We remember it as if it was yesterday," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "For weeks, we mobilized thousands of Wisconsinites on behalf of federal legislation to prevent Terri's death. Right-to-life organizations throughout the nation were doing the same. As a result, the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush courageously saw to it that federal legislation was enacted to allow the Schindler family access to the federal courts to plead for the life of their daughter."

In a series of acts of raw judicial power, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the mandate of Congress to take into consideration Terri's rights in a federal court proceeding. Also ignored was the Schindler family's desire to care for their beloved daughter in their home. The Court seemed determined to end the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo regardless of the rule of law or the norms of justice. From that point on, Terri was denied food and water and after thirteen excruciating days, her body succumbed to the horrific effects of starvation and dehydration.

Armacost continued, "When Terri died, we remembered all of those who stepped forward to advocate for her - Governor Jeb Bush, Florida legislators, the U.S. Congress, President Bush and the one lone voice on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit who understood what was happening and dared to dissent with this colleagues. We gave thanks for those who traveled to the hospice where Terri lay to keep vigil as the starvation progressed and those who came forward to champion her cause."

"And we prayed for a country that had lost its moral compass and allowed a helpless woman to die of starvation and dehydration while her worth as a human being was being debated. We also prayed for Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, that he would one day recognize what he had done and ask forgiveness for the death of his wife. Those prayers continue to this day."

"We will never forget you, Terri! The joy of eternal life is yours as you rest in the loving arms of your Lord and Maker."

ObamaCare, Ezekiel Emanuel, and COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM

What does ObamaCare mean for you?

From August 12, 2009:

ObamaCare means rationing of health care services.

Obama dodges and weaves on that, trying to avoid admitting that care will indeed be rationed.

He, of course, doesn't want the public to understand what government-run health care would really entail.

At his alleged town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday, (actually, it was more like a campaign rally), Obama extolled the wisdom of "expert health panels" and their role in government-run health care.

OBAMA: In terms of these expert health panels -- well, this goes to the point about "death panels" -- that's what folks are calling them. The idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we've got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take -- these aren't going to be forced on people, but they will help guide how the delivery system works so that you are getting higher-quality care.

Obama touts the judgment of these "expert health panels."

One such "health expert" is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a top adviser to Obama.

Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the "Complete Lives System" as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

Read The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009.



Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system



Emanuel, WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE POLICY ADVISER, has some very scary ideas about who's fit to live and who's life has been full enough.

Look at the chart. Determining whether to permit medical intervention on a curve?

Should older Americans be concerned about this? I think so. The very young are also targeted.

At his event in Portsmouth yesterday, Obama tried to convince Americans that rationing won't occur under his single payer plan.

But we've seen how socialized medicine works. It doesn't raise the standards of care for everyone. It creates scarcity. Quality care? Forget it.

Obama mocked opponents who point out that a government-run health care system bent on trimming expenses will mean cutting services.

OBAMA: Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various -- there are some variations on this theme.

The Complete Lives System does "pull the plug on grandma."

Emanuel is an "expert" Obama admires.

As Obama said in Portsmouth, "[W]e've got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations."

These same experts also will provide guidelines to doctors about what procedures will not be allowed.

Remember what Obama said on ABC during his health care infomercial in response to this question from Jane Sturm:

OBAMA: We're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system, that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs, that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

If the "expert health panel" deems certain treatments not cost effective, the government WILL be pulling the plug on "grandma."
_________________

Related post:

Ezekiel Emanuel: 'Thinking has Evolved'

Ezekiel Emanuel: 'Hello ObamaCare, Goodbye Grandma'

Stuart Schwartz, American Thinker, has written a great piece, "Hello ObamaCare, Goodbye Grandma."

He describes Ezekiel Emanuel's ideas and his influence on Obama, the Democrats, and their health care scheme.

Many fringe Leftists as well as members of mainstream media outlets have defended the policy recommendations of Ezekiel Emanuel and lauded him as a distinguished medical ethicist.

Schwartz cuts through the spin and spells out Emanuel's views in the simplest of terms. He uses the style of Dick and Jane children's books to relay his message.

Schwartz writes:

Oh, look! See Ezekiel. See Ezekiel Emanuel. Zeke is in charge of health care policy for the Obama administration. Policies are the official thoughts that guide the relationship of government and health care. Zeke thinks health care thoughts for the president and congressional leaders. Hello, health care policy.

Oh, look. See Zeke think. Zeke has not run a hospital. He has not run an insurance company. He has not run a medical practice. He has not worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Zeke has spent more than twenty years in education and government... thinking.

See Zeke think. Zeke specializes in thinking about "social policy" and medicine. Social policy is government management of services. Zeke heads a government department that thinks about who gets what health care treatments and when. He is the White House health care czar. And he has a medical degree and doctorate in social policy from Harvard, where brilliant people think. Think, Zeke, think.

President Obama, a Harvard Law graduate, shares Zeke's thoughts. Congressional Democrats praise Zeke's thoughts. Mainstream journalists and commentators praise his thoughts. Zeke's thoughts are their thoughts. Zeke thinks great thoughts. Hello, great thoughts.

Think, Zeke, think. Think and write. See Zeke write. His resume packs more than a fifty page list of articles, speeches and books. Read the articles, know Zeke. His writing provides the foundation for Zeke's "complete lives" approach to health services. Hello, complete lives.

Zeke created the "complete lives" approach to health care. A complete life is one that contributes in thought and action to the "instrumental value principles" of the greater community. Complete lives "prioritizes younger people" and lifestyles that are likely to contribute to the "common good." Hello, instrumental values. Hello, government.

Zeke thinks health care should contribute to the common good. The community, led by the government, determines the common good. Zeke thinks about community. Zeke is an active "communitarian." Communitarianism is a cross between communism, socialism, atheism and new age. Hello, communitarianism. Hello, Marx, both Groucho and Karl.

Zeke the communitarian believes that health care should promote the public good, and develop "reasoning skills" that contribute to a "just society." In "A Communitarian Health-Care Package," Zeke asserts that "community-minded" leadership must make medical decisions for "more passive individuals." Communities should have the "power of exclusion" from health services over those who do not share their view of the common good. Think, Zeke, think.

See Zeke think. Community good must influence medical treatment. Some groups "whose notions of the good are rooted in the denigration of others" should be excluded from some medical resources. Government may deny medical services to an individual who is a "hostile adversary" of community good and groups that are "noxious weeds which gain their strength" by vehemently opposing community goals. Hello, government priorities.

...Thus, Zeke concludes, patient and physician values and behavior must be changed. Government, on behalf of the community, must remake them as individuals. And, as he asked at the "2004 Communitarian Summit" at George Washington University, "What Is Wrong with Remaking Human Nature?" Hello, remaking physicians. Hello, remaking citizens.

Think, Zeke, think. Too many physicians and citizens do not understand the priorities inherent in a complete life. Therefore, Zeke thinks, we need universal, compulsory government-run health care. He thinks "more taxes" must "be required." He thinks only government can provide "just allocation of health care resources." He thinks government should make choices for physicians and individuals. Think, think, think.

See Zeke think. Zeke thinks your health care choices are selfish. Therefore, government, on behalf of "community," must force "involuntary" "outcomes" on those whose values and behavior conflict with the principles underlying government health care policies. Hello, involuntary outcomes. Hello, government force.

Zeke thinks universal, government-run healthcare must allocate medical services so as to exclude from some treatments those who do not contribute value to the community. Zeke proposes that smart people in government who understand the way your lifestyle and medical treatments "promote the continuation of the polity" should decide who gets what medical treatments, and when. He calls these "principles of allocations." Hello, principles of allocations.

Zeke thinks government must assure "distributive justice" You think you are just eating cheesecake. However, to Zeke, eating cheesecake is an act that either does or does not contribute to the "communitarian" good. He links individual health choices to community goals and government. Link, Zeke, link.

See Zeke link. He links medical treatment of those who are unable to live "complete lives" to government health care decisions. Zeke thinks those less able to live complete lives include the mentally and physically handicapped, the elderly, those with crippling illnesses, and those with "noxious" thoughts. They contribute less to community. Link and think, Zeke, link and think.

Zeke thinks health care must be rationed according to the value of the community to which an individual belongs. Valued communities include those with appropriate "instrumental" values, community activists, young and healthy persons, and favored racial and gender groups. Those of less value may not have the potential to "be or become" a "participating citizen." This group includes those with crippling medical problems, the elderly, the disabled of all ages, and infants too young to have received substantial "community investment."

See Zeke think. Think, think, think. Hello, Obama health care. Hello, social usefulness. Hello, government allocation of health services.

Goodbye, noxious weeds.

Goodbye, handicapped.

Goodbye, grandma.

Goodbye, grandpa.

Hello, brave new world.

Thankfully, every day more and more Americans are rejecting government-run health care.

See Americans think. Think, think, think.

Goodbye, Zeke.

Goodbye, rationing.

Goodbye, ObamaCare.