Page 6 The Compass/Feb. 200^
Opinion
Terri’s fl^t
By Rene Finlcenkeller
Columnist
I
t stung my ears, as I could
barely believe it was spoken
during the campaign: “President
Bush is sacrificing science for
ideology.” Kerry dared to
announce such rhetoric over
President Bush’s stance on stem
cell research, as if he had uttered
the most profound words ever-
heard. Half the audience
cheered, the other half sat, just
as stunned as 1 was in my living
room. Did he reallyjust belittle
the essence and respect of life to
what he was now daring to
redefine as an unimportant term,
. ideology? However, just how
innocent are Sen. Kerry and his
constituency from ever allowing
ideology to keep from saving
someone’s life?
The right to die movement was
only a far-fetched dream to Hitler
60 years ago—something he
hoped to build up to on behalf
of every retarded, disabled, and
emotionally unstable German.
But today, the spirit yearning to
annihilate anything sacred and
pure about humanity is breathing
steadily in America today. On
the surface, the argument for
people to be able to die with
dignity makes perfect sense.
Who wants to be a burden to
their family members? Who
wants all their children’s and
their own life-savings sucked
down the drain on hospital bills?
Who wants to suffer 3-4 months
longer from inexplicable pain
than they really have to? Who
wants their family members to be
left in limbo day in and day out,
wondering what they should do
for us if we are put on life
support but have no prognosis of
recovery? And who wants
anyone to clean after us when we
defecate in our beds? The right
to simply ask a doctor to let us
go, stop fighting the inevitable,
and peacefully leave this earth in
our sleep seems just as important
as any other right we’ve been
given.
But what if we weren’t a
burden to our families, but rather
a joy to them no matter what our
condition? What if there were
several prognoses for our
recovery? What if we were
debilitated, but were capable of
motioning to our family that we
still wanted to live? What if
there was an endless amount of
money to fund our recovery?
And what if dying in a dignified
manner meant being starved for
weeks? Would it make sense that
a court could suddenly announce
we could be put to death based
on another individual’s request?
Meet Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
She turned 41 in December But
she was once a beautiful 26-year-
old girl who’s heart stopped in
1990. When she was rushed to
the hospital by her husband,
Michael Schiavo, the emergency
doctors did not receive her full
history, and essentially caused
more harm than good in trying
to revive Terri. So much so that
she had suffered from what is
being deemed by the media and
• the right-to-die activists as
“severe brain damage.” She did
suffer brain damage to the degree
that she can no longer speak
words, her muscles are incapable
of swallowing anything, and at
times she needs help in sitting
up straight. Her husband claims
she never wanted to be put on
life support, so he has been in
court for 11 years fighting for it
to be removed. Every democrat
in Florida’s congress has painted
this as such a marital tragedy to
reporters, and that Michael
should be allowed to carry out
what he claims are Terri’s
wishes.
Here are some kickers to this
story major media sources refuse
to print, maybe because it
wouldn’t be effective for their
own ideology:
1) There is no proof, no
written consent, no living will,
no audio or videotape, no diary,
or any DNR form filed by Terri
that proves she never wanted to
be left on life support.
2) The life support that
Terri is on is a feeding tube. She
can breath on her own, she can
think on her own, her heart has
been perfectly healthy since her
shocking heart-attack 15 years
ago.
3) Michael filed a
malpractice suit against Terri’s
doctors—not for them placing
her on life support, but because
they made mistakes while trying
to revive her, causing her brain
to lose oxygen.
4) Michael won the
million-dollar lawsuit on behalf
of Terri, but only because he
testified to the jury that if he
won, all monies awarded would
go towards Terri’s complete
rehabilitation and recovery.
5) Y e s —
REHABILITATION, as many
experts, doctors, etc. conducted
numerous tests on Terri via her
parent’s requests, and concluded
she could regain most, if not all
of her muscle functioning,
including those in her throat that
currently keep her from eating on
her own.
6) Two months after he
won the lawsuits, totaling over
1.4 million dollars, and acting as
her legal guardian, he ordered for
all rehab to stop, and began the
legal process to have her feeding
tube removed, allowing her to
die by starvation. He has since
spent all but $55,000 of the
award on his attorney fees. The
reason suspected for this?
Michael won’t see a dime of
Terri’s life insurance unless Terri
dies as his wife under Florida
law. Hmm. Every penny goes
to her recovery, or he receives it
in the event of her death? Guess
which road he’s chosen.
7) When Terri’s parents
realized this man was no longer
a son-in-law, but becoming the
future murderer of their
daughter, they began filming her
going through rehab classes,
laughing and smiling with family
members, and requesting doctors
to appear on camera with her
saying she could recover if given
the adequate medical resources.
Michael went to court and
successfully got a court order to
prevent Terri’s entire family of
ever seeing her again.
8) The loving husband he
has repeatedly claimed to be, so
loving in fact, that his word after
being married to Terri for only 5
years should supercede her
parent’s, who had her for a
daughter for 26 years, began
dating many women just months
after Terri’s initial heart-attack.
He has been living with a fiancee
for 9 years, and they have 2
children together.
9) The parents have
requested time and time again to
be granted guardianship over
Terri; judges, senators,
congressmen, and Michael have
refused. They have requested he
divorce her. Michael has refused.
Terri is not allowed to divorce
her husband, unless Michael,
acting as her guardian, sees it fit
for her. So, a husband has
complete control over a wife’s
life, and presumably, death. Is
this Florida or Saudi Arabia?
10) Terri’s parents
attempted to have a Guardian ad
Litem assigned to Terri’s case to
fully investigate Terri’s simation.
When the Guardian ad Litem
testified in court that her findings
proved the best interest for Terri
was to be handed over to her
parents because Terri could
clearly make a full recovery, the
infamous Judge Greer dismissed
the Guardian ad Litem. He
ordered that Terry could no
longer qualify for such
“services” as a Guardian ad
Litem—a direct illegal move
against incapacitated patients
How many rights did that judge
trample, for ideology’s sake?
The only explanation for
Michael’s actions for the past 15
years is that he wants the money.
The only explanation for every
judge’s ruling on this case is
ideology. Ideology that is
willing to allow innocent,
incapacitated people to be
murdered. The right to die
movement is putting every
handicapped, injured, and
mentally challenged person at
risk of having family members
legally murder them. Terri has
people who love her and want to
take care of her Terri’s reactions
to her family in the home videos
prove she wants them to be there
for her
She has lived alone and
helpless for 5 years based on her
husband’s greed. She has lost 15
years of her life, because this
man never wanted to see her
recover. On January 24, the
Supreme Court, (the Schindler’s
final hope in rescuing Terri from
her so-called husband), rejected
hearing the case, knowing it
would throw the case back into
the very hands that want to see
Terri die. Democrats on the
Supreme Court, on the Florida
courts, and in the legislation are
going to make sure Michael gets
what he wants. And for what?
Ideology? Cry me a river Sen
Kerry. No, cry Terri Schindler
Schiavo and her parents a river
You can find out more about
Terri, her family, the court case
time line, Florida law, and how
you can help at
www.terrisfight.org
Identifying Religious
Right Is no easy task
5y Toby Tate
Editor-In-Chief
Y
u hear the term mentioned
on T.V., radio, and read it in
newspaper’s ad nauseam,
especially during an election
cycle: The Religious Right, that
enigmatic force that embodies
the fears of the American Left as
well as the “Moderates,” uniting
them against an iconoclastic
enemy, an enemy who seems
nebulous and unidentifiable.
Exactly who are these
demagogues of the political
structure, how do they function,
and, most importantly, what is
their motivation?
As recently as last week, there
was a story that appeared in the
Chicago Tribune titled
“Christian Right marks start of a
‘good four years.’” The main
character of this epic story was
the Reverend Lou Sheldon of the
sinister-sounding Traditional
Values Coalition. Ever heard of
them? Neither have I. So I
looked them up.
The Traditional Values
Coalition is an organization,
which claims a membership of
about 43,000 churches.
Apparently, they lobby congress
to make laws against things like
homosexual marriage, abortion
on demand, banning prayer from
public school, etc., all labeled by
Tom Paine.com as “hate-
mongering.”
The organization has been
accused of being a front for
organizations taking kickbacks ^
from its own founder. The,';
proof? Well, there was one
guy; a minister (out of
43,000 churches) who said
Sheldon did him wrong, and
then there was a mention of
California’s Fair Political
Practices Commission who also
said Sheldon was guilty. Did
they name any of these so-called
“umbrella” organizations
Sheldon was supposed to be
paying off? Nary a one. Has
there been an arrest or
conviction? Nope. Not even an
official investigation.
Sheldon, in an attempt to create
a Christian alternative to The
American Association of Retired
Persons, or AARP, was met with
righteous indignation. The
AARP, afraid of losing dues paid
by seniors as well as its political
stranglehold on them, accused
the TVC of running million
dollar deficits and claimed that
the “traditional values crowd is
being taken.” The proof? They
offered none. Just take their
word for it.
Then, there’s the huge
conservative media.
Take, for example, talk radio,
which consists of a handful of
conservative hosts such as Rush
Limbaugh, KenHamblin, Laura
Ingraham and Sean Hannity,
Libertarians like Neil Boortz and
Larry Elder and more centrist
types like Bill O’Reilly.
Television’s Fox News is also
considered by many to be
conservative for the simple fact
they actually allow conservatives
on the air. A large portion of
audiences for these shows also
tends to be liberal, as evidenced
by the callers who call in to
disagree with the hosts. The
Wall Street Journal and possibly
the Washington Times might
also be considered conservative.
Compared to the vast number
of television stations,
Hollywood movie studios and
newspapers, however, the
number of conservative media
outlets pales in comparison to
“non-conservative” (read:
liberal) ones. Consider USA
Today, the New York Times, the
L. A. Times, and every other large
metro newspaper as well as
television’s CBS, NBC, ABC,
CNN, MSNBC and virtually
every Hollywood studio. So
who is rallying the supposedly
huge number of conservative
block voters?
A phone poll conducted by the
Barna Research Group before
the 2000 election of 1,002 adults
revealed that among “born
again” Christians, which both A1
Gore and George W. Bush
profess to be, the same
percentage of people were
associated with both the
Democratic and Republican
parties, and though protestants
preferred Bush by a 46%-34%
margin. Catholics were evenly
split.
Also before the 2000 election,
Gary Bauer, conservative activist
and president of the Campaign
for Working Families, endorsed
none other than John McCain, a
man who continually blasted Pat
Robertson and the “religious
right” for various transgressions
during his campaign. Bauer was
supposed to lead a huge
following of conservative
Christians, and made Democrats’
mouths water at the prospect of
taking votes away from Bush.
Mother Jones.com went so far as
to report in a 1998 piece that
Bauer was “scaring the hell out
of the Republican
establishment”
(Interestingly, Bauer was never
referred to in the media as part
of the “religious right” after he
began to endorse McCain.)
Bush still won the nomination,
and even won the election,
though that point is still
ridiculously contested. (Witness
the 2004 election, where Bush
won the popular vote this time,
but now the liberal left is
contesting the Ohio electoral
votes, a 180-degree flip from
their protest of Gore winning the
popular vote in 2000, though he
lost the Electoral College vote.
Can you say “inconsistency?”)
Professor John Green of the
University of Akron and a
scholar of evangelical voting
behavior posted several
interesting statistics on the
university web site which is
based on the 2004 Fourth
National Survey of Religion and
Politics. The group most closely
resembling the much-maligned
religious right was the
Traditional Evangelical
Protestant group, a sub-group of
the Evangelical Protestants,
which makes up 26% of the
voting block. Of this 26%, the
Traditionalists, or “religious
right,” make up approximately
12.6%, with centrists and
modernists, who vote 26%
independent and 44% Democrat,
making up the rest. Therefore,
the so-called religious right must
be approximately 12%-13% of
the population, if they actually
exist.
If there is a religious right, then
what would we call leaders such
as Democratic Senator Joseph
Lieberman, a devout Jew; the
Reverend Jesse Jackson, former
Democratic presidential front-
runner and leader of the Rainbow
Coalition; the Reverend A1
Sharpton, former Democratic
presidential candidate; former
President Jimmy Carter, a born-
again Christian who has written
several books about his faith or
Democratic Senator and white
supremacist Robert Byrd, former
recruiter for the KKK? John
Kerry claims to be a Catholic, as
do many Democrats, and Bill
Clinton was often seen going to
church with his family during his
time in office, probably with
good reason.
There are also the ones who
push another religion on the rest
of us. It’s called Atheism, the
faith that there is no God. (It has
to be a faith, because it would
be impossible to prove. I can’t
show you God, but can you show
me no God? And don’t even try
the Santa Claus argument; that
gets old.) They make demands
that we stop praying in public,
that we remove all indication of
the Christian faith from all
government buildings, yata yata
yata. Yet, some believe the
religious right is already dead.
Or is it?
In 1994, the religious right
was imposing their values on
America, but by 1996, it was
reported by the New York Times
that 8 out of 10 Republicans did
not consider themselves right-
wing conservatives. In 1998, it
was reported that Pat
Robertson’s Christian
Coalition’s power was ending,
"(when had they made a
comeback?). Then came the
2000 election, in which it was
said the Christian Coalition was
a huge influence for George W.
Bush. In 2001, the coalition was
again declared DOA.
Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority,
which began in 1980 with
340,000 members,
(compared to the 16 million
members of the labor union),
was “dispatched” even earlier
than the Christian Coalition, in
1989. So who is making
obscenely huge campaign
contributions?
According to data compiled by
the Center for Responsive
Politics, the top 20 PAC’s
(Political Action Committee)
donations do not even include
activist Christian organizations.
The total contributions from
Republican/Conservative PAC
members totaled $2,599,663
from January 1999 to June 2000.
Who was the largest contributor
to political campaigns for the
same period? Trial lawyers, or
the “legal left,” who donated
approximately $7million to
Democrats and about $13,500 to
Republicans.
The “religious right” must be
under-funded.
In her book Slander, political
pundit Ann Coulter writes, “Not
only is there no meaningful
definition of the ‘religious right,’
there is no coherence to its life
span. It is uncanny how
Orwellian it is. The ‘religious
right’ cannot be defined beyond
the broadest generalities; its
leaders are unknown; it exercises
vast, inexplicable influence; and
it is constantly being
vanquished, only to rise again.”
The questions remain: Who
comprises the mysterious
“religious right,” how do they
function, and what is their
motivation?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Apparently, it consists of
whoever the left or the
“moderates” say it is at any
opportune moment.