Michael Schiavo joins the fray

Terri Schiavo's husband starts a PAC devoted to defeating the Bible-thumping politicians who used his comatose wife as a football.

By Michael Scherer

Dec. 07, 2005 | At the height of the battle, Michael Schiavo appeared to be a reluctant cultural warrior. His wife, Terri, lay comatose, in her 15th year of vegetative slumber, connected to a feeding tube, but well beyond resuscitation. Around her hospice, a political hurricane swirled.

In Terri's name, President George Bush interrupted his vacation, Sen. Bill Frist played doctor from the Senate floor, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush launched a flimsy criminal investigation, and Rep. Tom DeLay issued ominous political threats to the judiciary. The religious right had turned Terri into a symbolic beachhead in the battle for a "culture of life," and the Republican Party had answered the call.

(snip)

But now, as the one-year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death approaches, Michael Schiavo is changing his approach and preparing to enter the political fray. Terri's fate has already been decided. Now her husband wants to claim her legacy. "For 15 years, I have been watching the politicians working their ways into my case. I felt I needed to do something when this was all said and done," Schiavo told Salon on Tuesday. "I didn't ask for this fight, but now I am ready."

This week Schiavo will roll out a new political action committee, called Terri PAC, with the hope of raising money to defeat the politicians who tried to intervene in the legal battle between Schiavo and Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. "Whatever I can do, I am going to do," says Schiavo, who works as a nurse in the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Fla. Starting in January, he plans to change his work hours to three 12-hour shifts a week, allowing him more time to work on politics.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/07/schiavo/

That sonofabitch barely interrupted his vacation after Katrina. Is he always on fucking vacation?

terrorists and the vagaries of natural disasters

For our sake I hope he is wildly successful

Hurricane Katrina was when Bush "jumped the shark"; milking Terri Schiavo's tragedy for political points is what did it for the Wacky Religious Right.

I've been wondering if he'd ever come out swinging against the American Taliban and now I'm gratified to know that he's on the case.

K&R :kick:

:kick:

You and Terri deserve your revenge after what they did to you and to her. No one should have to spend their last days in a media circus like that.
No one should be villfied for making tough family decisions.
Politicians should never come between a husband and wife. Nor should they come between a doctor and patient.

with their theocratic and narrow views. It appears that we are finally pushing back. Good.

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x178273

It's truly disgusting how the ACLJ and other fundie-groups get all these people all worked up with their stupid "wars" of one type or another and take their money to support these disgustingly lavish lifestyles.

He backed Democrat Tim Kaine for Governor of Virginia early November. He said he "based his endorsement on responses from Kaine and Republican Jerry Kilgore during their Oct. 9 televised debate when asked if governors should intervene in disputes within families over discontinuing life support for a loved one."
CBS News article here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/03/ap/politics/mainD8DL3IAG1.shtml

??

moved on than stayed stuck in the kool-aid drinking rut.

Know plenty of them and they are more then disgusted that they did & with *&CO.

Glad he finally awoken.

I think he should let her lie in peace after all she went through, aware or not.

And I don't think he should, in effect, rub it in her parents and siblings face despite his disagreements with them and the actions they took - in desperation.

How would he feel if the situation had exactly been reversed ?

There's something disrespectful about it to me and more like the the people he is opposed to.

...The Schindler's have used "Terri's Fight" for several years now. They felt no compulsion to consider Michael's feelings and have shown a good deal of contempt for him. He owes them no consideration beyond what his humanity calls for.

If we accept his position with respect to his wife, and the judgment of the court, then -this- is Terri's true fight, as it has been since Michael petitioned the courts: to fight against state interference in a personal medical decision.

If that sounds familiar think of the right to choose an abortion and how much the state has tried to interfere in -that-.

I think this is a very practical way of honouring his wife and her right to be free of state intervention.

So it's an open question whether using her name indeed reflects a philosophy that she in fact held.

I have no doubts about his dedication to her in the earlier years after the event and what he went through to ensure her care. SO I have no belief in any evil intentions on his part.

But, as the years progressed and the hopelessness became obvious attitudes and his emotions likely changed.

The Schindlers were desperate. It is sad that what they wanted was not reality. I blame the exploiters of their desperation, not them. If the situation was reversed he might have felt and acted similarly.

He won, however an empty victory that was. I have doubts - without any knowledge - that Terri would have wanted him to exploit her name at the emotional expense of her parents and siblings. In any case, I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Your characterization is false. The state has a proper role in such matters - to ensure that the rights of the ill and incapacitated are protected against those that might have bad intentions. That is what the courts did in a deliberate and thorough fashion. The problem in this case was the politicization and grandstanding and the interference of third parties.

There are other names fot the PAC - with clearer meaning - he could have chosen to persue the goals - which I don't disapprove of. Using Terri's name is exploitive and inappropriate.

The courts certainly thought it was.

"So it's an open question whether using her name indeed reflects a philosophy that she in fact held."

Only for those who reject the court's findings.

"I have no doubts about his dedication to her in the earlier years after the event and what he went through to ensure her care. SO I have no belief in any evil intentions on his part."

"But, as the years progressed and the hopelessness became obvious attitudes and his emotions likely changed."

I see no confusion here. Initially there was uncertainty about whether Terri would recover, and to what extent. Once it became obvious she was never going to recover, her wishes about end-of-life treatment came into effect. As her husband and legal guardian, it was his responsibility to carry out those wishes, which he did despite all efforts to stop him, persuade him, bribe him.

"The Schindlers were desperate. It is sad that what they wanted was not reality. I blame the exploiters of their desperation, not them. If the situation was reversed he might have felt and acted similarly."

And that was what the courts were for: to resolve this in the best interests of Terri.

"He won, however an empty victory that was. I have doubts - without any knowledge - that Terri would have wanted him to exploit her name at the emotional expense of her parents and siblings. In any case, I don't think it's the right thing to do."

And you think Terri would want her parents to exploit her name as they've done repeatedly, in front of TV cameras and on the net, making money from speaking engagements disparaging Michael and the courts who released her from her prison?

I think their emotional state is their problem, not Michael's and not Terri's. Michael has every right to start a pac in her name to help ensure what happened to her never happens to anyone else. That's exactly the argument the Schindlers have used in naming their advocacy group which is dedicated towards interfering in every end-of-life case just as the RW interfered in the decision about Terri.

"Your characterization is false. The state has a proper role in such matters - to ensure that the rights of the ill and incapacitated are protected against those that might have bad intentions. That is what the courts did in a deliberate and thorough fashion. The problem in this case was the politicization and grandstanding and the interference of third parties."

Come now, I'm not talking about the Florida court proceedings. I'm talking about Jeb Bush and the unconstitutional 'Terri's Law'. I'm talking about DeLay, Frist and Bush ramming through unconstitutional law through Washington.

"There are other names fot the PAC - with clearer meaning - he could have chosen to persue the goals - which I don't disapprove of. Using Terri's name is exploitive and inappropriate."

Then I am sure you are just as upset that the Schindlers have been doing it for years, using Terri's name to champion a cause that kept her locked up in a vegetative state for years. I'm sure you're upset they are using her name to interfere in the end-of-life cases of others, creating problems for other families as they did with Michael.

I support Michael's effort to get Terri's name associated with a cause that holds the politicians who interfered in her case to account.

The Schindlers are not the victims here. Michael and Terri are, and always were the victims.

Please identify where the court found that Terri informed Mikchael about her wishes not to be kept alive in such circumstances based upon anything other that Michaels' claims and representations.

You seem to have an insight or knowledge about Terri's thinking that is not in the court record and make lots of claims about what Terri would or wouldn't have wanted. Where di you come by it.

If her wishes or intentions had, in fact, been that well known and documented then the case would probably not have been so contentious and acrimonious. The very absence of such documentation is what both led to polarized viewpoints and to complexity for the courts.

I do not have to approve of what her birth family did in trying to preserve her life and in similar cases - however futile it may have been - to disapprove of Michael's choices to exploit her name for his views - however well intentioned. Why was it wrong for them and right for him ? That's a 'you did it first' defense which does nothing to respect Terri.

Furthermore, with respect to his choice, having the right is not the same as doing what is right.

...I've seen enough of those arguments at the pro-life blogs to think we're going to eventually agree on much of anything on this subject.

But I'm not opposed to his activism, I'm uncomfortable with using Terri's name, so I find your reference to pro-life irrelevant to that issue and an attempt to perhaps associate me with them. Perhaps not, but what was the reason, if you don't kind ?

...my wife and I followed the Schiavo case for the last two years before she died. As things heated up near the end, I read much on what was going on, the trial transcripts available at findlaw, the Schindler's website, and the pro-life blogs (whatever google listed).

That's where I first saw the arguments you've presented: at the pro-life blogs.

We realized that arguing with those who doubted the veracity of the court or Michael was a mug's game: no exit strategy. We doubt anyone's reputation would last long under the 'assault by innuendo' we witnessed in those discussions. Indeed, the less evidence they could find to support their arguments the more convinced they were that their pet conspiracy theory was true: evidence was irrelevant to their beliefs.

You demonstrated this by asking for evidence -other than Michael's-. Somehow you've impeached his testimony simply based on suspicion. That her wishes were not "well known" somehow translates into a belief they were not known at all, or that the claims made were invented.

The courts did not find any of that credible.

Neither my wife nor I want to be kept alive under the conditions Schiavo endured. No one knew this for years aside from each other. We trust each other as guardian and we trust the state to recognize the precedence of our marriage over other relationships. And my in-laws have had a nasty habit of meddling, much to my wife's exasperation.

It's much easier to put ourselves in Michael's position than the Schindler's. Each of us has an insurance policy payable to the other. It's called 'taking care of your loved ones in the case of death'. It's a responsible thing for families to do. If it is to be used to cast suspicion on anyone whose spouse dies, and run them through the wringer the way Michael was, then perhaps we should cancel our policies and leave each other destitute when we die.

But that means nothing to someone who impeaches the testimony of a spouse simply because he stands to inherit.

Like I said: there's no exit strategy for this debate.

Hope he is successful. God knows he deserves some fightin' back after all they put him through for so many years.

It's a news story, not an opinion piece.

with the mid terms coming up people need to remember how the Repubs conducted themselves during this whole mess. No offense to Slate but it would be nice if someone bigger picked this up and ran with it.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Reminds me of Cindy Sheehan in some ways or vice versa....

Yeah, Michael! You're setting a good example of turning a tragedy into a vehicle for positive change.

I saw a sign JUST last week (in the back window of a car) that said...

-------------------------------
Michael Schaivo

1) Murderer
2) Adulterer
3) Thief

God will get you in the end!!
-------------------------------

It's no surprise that I saw this car heading North towards the suburbs of Atlanta, GA.

:D

He's stayed out of the media during the whole mess and now he's speaking up. GO MICHAEL!

Usually, in this kind of case there is a long list of "Done and kicked!"

Any reason to doubt his integrity now? He went through hell when there were easier and more profitable alternatives. That's usually a pretty good indicator with respect to trustworthiness.

In what regard did he keep his word to Terri? Who said he'd kept his word to her? He?

And what "more profitable alternatives" were there? I thought I read that he claimed money for her medical care (presumably an insurance policy), and had the plug pulled while there was still a sizeable proportion of it unspent. But I'd be happy to be put right on that, if it's untrue.

...and leave Terri to her parents. He didn't take it. I recall two different offers being made.

And yes, I believe his word on this. I know far more about my wife's thoughts than my in-laws ever did. She knows more about mine than my mother. I doubt there are many married couples who would claim otherwise. I suppose that is why the spouse is made guardian rather than surviving parent(s).

Why do you suppose they include "two become one", and "what God brings together let no one tear asunder" and things like that in marriage ceremonies? Why do you suppose this bond between husband and wife requires a court to end, but no court is required to end the bond between parent and child?

are bad spouses and bad parents? Since you cite Christian culture and tradition, I will cite Christ's own words in Matthew's Gospel, as the corollary of my point: "Whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven, is my brother, my sister and mother". As for his turning down greater sums, I doubt if he was expecting such a bright search-light on his affairs.

There are evidently occasions when there is no justification at all for keeping a person alive artifically, but the impression I have in this case, is that it was plainly a very bad act, in fact, murder, to turn off her life support. Fortunately, however, what I or you suspect matters not one jot, because we are all going to be judged by the only person who knows the least motions of our heart and the least details of our lives. It is important for my salvation to hope for the best, rather than wish the worst concerning your motivations in this matter.

It was not as clear-cut in terms of medical science as you and your medical-expert witnesses purport it to be. There was more joy on that young woman's face in the photograph we saw than some of you have probably ever known or ever will.

I mentioned at the time that a neuroscientist had perfomed a controlled experiment that indicated that the brain is not indispensable to the functioning of the mind and the senses, but rather is ultimately independent of it. It was carried out during a near-death experience, when the brain had ceased all activity for several minutes. No, I didn't take the name, etc, of the neuroscientist from the program, primarily because I'm not interested in convincing sceptics. Anyway, since then, there was an article in one of our papers on the same subject, relating to another case of scientific evidence to the same effect. Like it or lump, I'm not arguing the toss about it. Argue among yourselves, but count me out.

"There was more joy on that young woman's face..."

I hate to bring you the sad news, but Terri was blind and had minimal brain function. The look of joy on her face was the way she looked the majority of the time. For God's sake, give Terri a break. What kind of life do you think she had? She was merely existing, not living. Her husband had the moral courage to allow her a peaceful ending to a sad existence.

And by the way, her parents didn't always tell the truth. At one point, they said the only reason she was on a tube feeding was because it took her a long time to eat and the staff at the nursing facility didn't have time to feed her. After working for years in hospitals and nursing homes, I know that's not true. A feeding tube is NEVER inserted for the convenience of the staff; it's only inserted when a person is unable to take adequate nutrition orally. Apparently Terri's brain function was so minimal, she was unable to even swallow.

I really don't understand you fundamentalist types. Just a fraction of the cost spent on keeping Terri alive in that nursing home could benefit so many people in so many ways. If Jeb truly wants to promote the "culture of life", why is he cutting the funding of social and health programs that help people, like Head Start for preschool children, Medicaid funding for health care for the poor, etc?

is contained in your last paragraph. Your highly understandable fury at the fact that you live in the richest country in the world and yet do not have a national health service, still less a welfare state, colors your whole "take" on the affair. And the fact that the very people who faulted your (what I perceive as callous, though for all, that very human) cynicism - a "dog in the manger" attitude towards someone with a substantially impaired (though I don't buy your medical diagnosis or your favorite specialists') quality of life, are the very ones who have cheated and robbed you blind, as if you were living in Victorian era, are the very ones who affected compassion for Terri. It's very like the abortion issue. Far from being concerned for those who actually are born, they actually condemn all too many of your population to a long drawn-out death, living on the streets, or a quicker death by denying you tax-funded medical care. It doesn't make you right concerning Terri Schiavo. But it's futile arguing, because neither of us is going to be persuaded. Most of you are, I suspect, what Solzhenitsyn called, I think, "atheist secular fundamentalists".

There have been billionaires who were miserably unhappy, and doubtless there still are, though in theory the quality of their life would have been second to none, by the normal materialist standards of our capitalist societies. Some maybe attempt suicide, however "successful" or otherwise. On the other hand, a Baptist fellow-prisoner of Solzhenitsyn - obviously not an American-style "fundie" - taught him to rejoice in the opportunity the prison camp giving him of drawing nearer to God and finding the keenest appreciation of even the smallest things. They were on a patch that was very arid and bare, and pointing to a few tufts of grass, he said (not verbatim) "Look at this leaf of grass, here. The intricate way it was created; how incredible beautiful it is. And yet God has made that as a carpet for our feet."

True, you got some of your understandable anger and bitterness at the Republicans' vile hypocrisy off your chest, but quite apart from the disputed issue of the intolerable quality of Terri's life, your contributing to the killing of Terri, and that in such a cruel way, will hardly have advanced the cause of the American people's right to a national health service one jot; if anything, it has introduced needless political controversy, while the neocons have proved all too able to banjax their own cause. Indeed, you have fallen into the very trap that is their normal environment: knowing (in this case, being concerned about) the price of everything and the value of nothing (in this case, not putting its proper value on the sacred, spiritual nature of Terri as a child of God, but seeing her, rather, as no more than a piece of meat in permanent suspended animation). We're no going to agree are we? A rhetorical question, but it's difficult to disengage when you feel strongly about something. If you respond, I'll perhaps read it, but am unlikely to respond. What's the point in arguing about it, when we start off from different basic assumptions? We'll both be arguing perhaps both with brilliant logic, but instead of engaging, of joining issue with each other's position, we'll be building on parallel and very diferent assumptions.

I never offered a medical diagnosis. Do you know plain English? How can I respond to blathering gibberish?

"And the fact that the very people who faulted your (what I perceive as callous, though for all, that very human) cynicism--a "dog in the manger" attitude towards someone with a substantially impaired (though I don't buy your medical diagnosis or your favorite specialists') quality of life, are the very ones who have cheated and robbed you blind, as if you were living in Victorian era, are the very ones who affected compassion for Terri."

The above sentence is taken directly from your diatribe. What are you trying to say?

I think I understand part of what your point is, that all human life is precious, that we can't put a price on life, etc, and I don't disagree with that. But you go on to say that Terri was a child of God. Yet it was through artificial and medical interventions that she lived for so long after her initial collapse; she would have died years ago if it had been up to God. She couldn't swallow, so she would have starved. What makes you think that Terri's sacred spirit would want to remain in her broken mind and body, and not soar to be with the God who had called for her? How can you or other fundies profess to know what is best for someone like Terri?

By the way, I don't live on the streets or depend on tax-funded health care, though I think we should have national health care. I sense your note of contempt for people who do live on the streets or depend on tax-funded health care. Not very compassionate of you. WWJD?

I've had more conversations than I cared to with my manager. It breaks down to Hope vs Fact.

the right wing talking points.

Lots of information.

He should maybe get a DU membership.

;)

...when we get contact information for his PAC we should let him know.

Good for you Michael - we'll be working with you to defeat those fascists too!

would not let him go so he suffered terribly hooked up to tubes and machines and undergoing one operation after the next. Very sad because it would have been a more humane, peaceful death otherwise and I believe he was in his right mind when he said he wanted to die. Finally the doctors turned off the machines and took out the tubes and he finally died---anyhow, Michael Schiavo, you have my full support.

PS---Why do 2nd wives have more say than 3 adult children in situations like this?

changing catalyst for Michael Schiavo..for the politicians who were pandering with Terri's condition..it's back to poisoning our Nation as usual.

Please visit TerriPAC.org and do what you can.

We've gotten a great response and need your help to keep this going.

We can't afford to let it fail.

Why -- A reminder from today's Palm Beach Post:
Republican Congressman Chris Shays on his colleagues abuse of power:
"It was an embarrassment," Shays said. "It was so blatantly designed to give Tom (DeLay) a platform, and it was just a big dud. Even Republican judges ignored the legislation."

Welcome to DU!! :toast: