Theresa Marie Schindler
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005, 9:05 am
|Behold, I cry out of wrong, but I am not heard: I cry aloud, but there is no judgment.
What's next? In the immediate future, Florida officials presumably will be following applicable state law:
- Title XXX - SOCIAL WELFARE
Chapter 415 - ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
415.1034 Mandatory reporting of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults; mandatory reports of death.-- [Adult Protective Services still has pending its investigation of reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation regarding Terri under this section. —LR]
(2) MANDATORY REPORTS OF DEATH.--Any person who is required to investigate reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation and who has reasonable cause to suspect that a vulnerable adult died as a result of abuse, neglect, or exploitation shall immediately report the suspicion to the appropriate medical examiner, to the appropriate criminal justice agency, and to the department, notwithstanding the existence of a death certificate signed by a practicing physician. The medical examiner shall accept the report for investigation pursuant to s. 406.11 and shall report the findings of the investigation, in writing, to the appropriate local criminal justice agency, the appropriate state attorney, and the department. Autopsy reports maintained by the medical examiner are not subject to the confidentiality requirements provided for in s. 415.107.
Title XXIX - PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter 406 - MEDICAL EXAMINERS; DISPOSITION OF DEAD BODIES
406.11 Examinations, investigations, and autopsies.--
(1) In any of the following circumstances involving the death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine the cause of death and shall, for that purpose, make or have performed such examinations, investigations, and autopsies as he or she shall deem necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:
(a) When any person dies in the state:
1. Of criminal violence. [See note at section 415.1034 above.]
3. By suicide. [Assisted suicide in Terri's case, since "artificial life support" did not include feeding tubes at the time she last expressed to her "husband" her "wish to die if brain damaged" (based on that adulterer's testimony).]
8. In any suspicious or unusual circumstance. [See 1 above.]
(c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at sea. ["Husband" wants to
cremate Terri's body dispose of the evidence.]
Title XLVII - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 936 - INQUESTS OF THE DEAD
936.001 Purpose.--The purpose of this chapter is to provide a procedure whereby a public inquest may be made into a death for which an autopsy is required, when there is a question of the occurrence of a criminal act, criminal negligence, or foul play associated with the death.
Title XLVII - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 925 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
925.09 Authority of state attorney to order autopsies.--The state attorney may have an autopsy performed, before or after interment, on a dead body found in the county when she or he decides it is necessary in determining whether or not death was the result of a crime. Physicians performing the autopsy shall be paid reasonable fees by the county upon the approval of the county commission and the state attorney ordering the autopsy.
Title XXXVII - INSURANCE
Chapter 627 - INSURANCE RATES AND CONTRACTS
627.615 Physical examination, autopsy.--The contract shall include the following provision:
"Physical Examinations and Autopsy: The insurer at its expense has the right to have the insured examined as often as reasonably necessary while a claim is pending. It may also have an autopsy made unless prohibited by law."
Title XXIX - PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter 382 - VITAL STATISTICS
382.008 Death and fetal death registration.--
(1) A certificate for each death and fetal death which occurs in this state shall be filed on a form prescribed by the department with the local registrar of the district in which the death occurred within 5 days after such death and prior to final disposition, and shall be registered by such registrar if it has been completed and filed in accordance with this chapter or adopted rules. The certificate shall include the decedent's social security number, if available. In addition, each certificate of death or fetal death....
(2) The funeral director who first assumes custody of a dead body or fetus shall file the certificate of death or fetal death. In the absence of the funeral director, the physician or other person in attendance at or after the death shall file the certificate of death or fetal death. The person who files the certificate shall obtain personal data from the next of kin or the best qualified person or source available. The medical certification of cause of death shall be furnished to the funeral director, either in person or via certified mail, by the physician or medical examiner responsible for furnishing such information....
(3) Within 72 hours after receipt of a death or fetal death certificate from the funeral director, the medical certification of cause of death shall be completed and made available to the funeral director by the physician in charge of the decedent's care for the illness or condition which resulted in death, the physician in attendance at the time of death or fetal death or immediately before or after such death or fetal death, or the medical examiner if the provisions of s. 382.011 apply. The physician or medical examiner shall certify over his or her signature the cause of death to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
(a) The local registrar may grant the funeral director an extension of time upon a good and sufficient showing of any of the following conditions:
1. An autopsy is pending.
2. Toxicology, laboratory, or other diagnostic reports have not been completed....
(4) If the local registrar has granted an extension of time to provide the medical certification of cause of death, the funeral director shall file a temporary certificate of death or fetal death which shall contain all available information, including the fact that the cause of death is pending. The physician or medical examiner shall provide an estimated date for completion of the permanent certificate.
(5) A permanent certificate of death or fetal death, containing the cause of death and any other information which was previously unavailable, shall be registered as a replacement for the temporary certificate. The permanent certificate may also include corrected information if the items being corrected are noted on the back of the certificate and dated and signed by the funeral director, physician, or medical examiner, as appropriate.
(6) The original certificate of death or fetal death shall contain all the information required by the department for legal, social, and health research purposes. All information relating to cause of death in all death and fetal death records and the parentage, marital status, and medical information included in all fetal death records of this state are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1), except for health research purposes as approved by the department; nor may copies of the same be issued except as provided in s. 382.025.
Who's next? Despite my emails to responsible officials in both our federal and Florida's government, I failed to help make enough of a difference in time. I failed to help persuade these public servants to fully protect Terri's civil rights. I failed to help keep a handful of federal judges from denying Terri a real chance at having her case tried anew in their courts, as was required by U.S. law. I failed to help Terri and her family. As a conscientious citizen—as a conscientious adult human being—when witnessing someone suffering or about to suffer unjust harm, I have the responsibility to render that person as much direct and indirect assistance as I am able towards lessening or preventing it, in accordance with my personal understanding of what is right, proper, and legal under the circumstances and with the dictates of my own conscience, and to face any and all consequences for my failure to do so. In short, the Golden Rule as it applies to injustice. However insufficient I believe that assistance may prove, I must try to render it because I have no way of predicting with absolute certainty that it won't help make a real, positive difference—perhaps in a manner I wasn't then fully aware of or able to foresee. It is why, given everything everyone who tried to help Terri and her family have done, I maintain hope that no one else will have to suffer the injustices they did. As long as there are such people fighting as best they can for the civil rights of those who aren't capable of fighting for their own, now that we know much more about who and what in our society they'll be facing—be it the devaluers of human life, the indifferent and the ill-informed, or the many predisposed to prostrating themselves before that high altar adorned with the judge's gavel—the next denial or deprival of a completely helpless person's rights by state officials acting under color of law won't culminate in his or her judicially enforced murder. In the meanwhile, endeavoring to remain vigilant so that no abuse of such a fellow citizen's fundamental liberties
will happen again, is one of the best ways I now know to honor Theresa Marie Schindler's memory and ensure that her legacy includes the full restoration of secured rights for all who are vulnerable among us. This means publicly remembering why and how Terri died, understanding where and when our sense and system of justice failed her, and working to find and effect something much better than mere process whose highest need is to protect innocent human life—which always upholds above all else its absolute sanctity.
Even the life of one mentally impaired young woman, whose every utterance and gesture no judge in our land with the power to decide her fate had any wish to either go hear and see personally or allow fair recognition in his court—choosing instead to summarily reject and ultimately silence them all, affected not only the lives of millions but their attitudes about life and our duty to the weak and helpless, in ways no president, pope, or even judge ever could. In spite of her condition she expressed, ineffably to each of us, her life's meaning and its value, especially during its final two weeks as judges dispassionately discharged their unappealable death sentence on her. Her entire being was pleading, "I'm still here, I'm hanging on—I wish to live!" She moved the leader of the free world and the national legislature of the greatest country on earth to act, to officially come to her assistance by meeting in special session and passing an emergency bill intended to rescue her due-process and equal-protection rights, which our president immediately signed into law. She moved the highest officials within her religion—the largest branch of Christianity, possessing over a billion followers—to indirectly come to her assistance by speaking out on her behalf and protesting the way her human judges were mistreating her. She moved regular citizens in many states to directly come to her assistance by walking on the
Woodside Hospice's grounds crime-scene area in an attempt to bring her sips of water—which she was able to swallow naturally, the same way she was doing with her own saliva—only to be forcibly stopped, handcuffed, and charged with trespassing by local police before they even reached the front door. She neither wrote letters nor made phone calls to the president, her representative, either of her senators, her highest religious leaders, or any of those regular citizens, asking for their assistance. With the exception of Representative C.W. Bill Young (initials stand for "Comment Withheld"), all of them still offered it as much as they thought they could, individually or together, because they believed her life was worth these efforts. For a woman who (so we were told) couldn't reach out to anyone, she certainly touched an enormous number of lives in remarkable and extraordinary ways before and during her judge-assisted suicide murder.
Just as remarkable, although becoming less extraordinary every day it seems, is how a purportedly free people who profess respect for human rights, life, and liberties permitted the very institutions of justice they ordained and established in order to secure the blessings of such things to themselves and their posterity, to be cast the greatest obstacle to justice as it abused and finally took away each one of those which a voiceless, choiceless, totally dependent woman had presumably been endowed with by her own Creator. Officials in those institutions elevated themselves above all considerations of justice due her by law when they feared affording her any might intrude on any of the privileges and immunities they believed due them. They first asked themselves, "What's in it for us." They didn't like the answer, so they proceeded to willfully ignore and thwart our law and its democratically enacted mechanisms of justice. For the first nation ever to be founded on the profound principle that the state serves the individual—not the other way around—it is more than tragic how we as a people allowed the arrogance of these officials to progress to this point.
Nothing I could write more aptly reviews the performance of what currently passes for American justice than those posted by Chuck at You Big Mouth, You! on the thirteenth and eighth days of Terri's execution:
- I'm an EMT. I have seen people die. There is no dignity in death. It's sad, and humiliating, and a bunch of other negatives, but it isn't dignified. Contrary to Michael Schiavo's lawyer, a woman dying of thirst and hunger is not peaceful or beautiful. People die. An EMT learns that very quickly. But I'm not charged with giving up. My charge, from God, or Allah, or some source of morality, is to fight death, to do all I can to hold it back. I am asked to do my best.
Who is doing their best for Terry? Who stands in the door and says "You shall not pass!"? Isn't life a little more important than Michael Schiavo thinks?
I don't want government in my business. Yet, with all its faults, sometimes government can be right. Terry Schiavo deserves more than small government gives her. I deserve more, when it comes to the rights not enumerated in the Constitution. We are better than we are behaving.* * *No, my friends. Murder is murder, and Terri Schiavo is being murdered. Somewhere along the line, we have lost our morals, and one of us will be the next victim of an America gone immoral. I assure you of that.
Whatever values guide our government, our political leaders and our judges, they are not my values. Life, living, is important to me. It is my means toward union with my God. Taking life from a Terri Schiavo means that I may have my life taken as well, and my chance to receive God's mercy and forgiveness. There are times when secular justice calls for a life to be taken, but Terri Schiavo has received no justice. The only mercy and justice that she will receive will be from her God when He enfolds her at her death. This is not how God calls us to live. This is not how our country is supposed to be. For the first time in my life, I feel like a stranger in my own land.
Had anyone been able to actually help put a stop to this final, murderous injustice which our alleged judicial system cold-bloodedly inflicted on Terri, I—along with millions of others fighting for Terri's civil rights, a vast majority of whom are constituents of our faith-based communities—would very likely now consider that person a true hero. Definitely among my few top-tier, real-life ones. Even if he were Ted Kennedy: I'd never, for example, refer to him using another "al-Q" again.
But there were no heroes in this whole sad, disheartening story. Only villains and victims. Villains led by judges in both a state and federal judicial branch bent on demonstrating what they believe are their godlike, infallible powers to decide our lives and deaths, assisted directly by elitist editors and reporters in a mainly liberal-biased media who view themselves Our Makers of Opinion and are thoroughly satisfied with how they're able to use that most oligarchical branch of our government as a controllable proxy for their own desire to exert Jovian control over us, and indirectly by citizens who actually believed that the premeditated killing of a voiceless human being by a weapon emblazoned with our own courts' imprimatur does not affect their lives or civil rights in any way—although it's probably more accurate to include the latter among the victims, as they were relying solely on the products of that complicit media to inform their perceptions.
The most minor villain here is the so-called "husband." His desire to see Terri suffer what's actually a lingering, painful death would've been stopped dead in its tracks had just one probate-court judge rejected and wrote "do not resuscitate" on his claim that Terri was already "all dead" and had once told him long ago she wouldn't want to live in that condition. Moreover, each panel of judges presiding up the line would've protected their own by summarily affirming that decision. As it so happens, the adulterer and his legal team headed by George Felos, who until recently was on the board of directors of the
hospice crime scene where our courts murdered Terri, simply took advantage of a system infested with inappropriately dispassionate judges who willfully made sure the odds were stacked fatally against her.
The chief villains, however, are the commanders-in-chief who had the authority to effectively come to Terri's assistance but were unwilling to subject themselves to the bad press they undoubtedly would've received had they the tenacity to exert their co-equal branch status against those Robed Masters of America. "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," so our constitution demands of the President of the United States of America. Among those laws was the one entitling Terri to a new trial of the facts, which the federal judiciary badly mistreated and starved into a dead letter a full week before Terri's merciless, judge-approved murder. The U.S. supreme court had not declared it unconstitutional. So it remained, as our constitution also demands, the supreme law of the land, which every judge—in Florida's middle-district court on up—was bound by oath to respectfully follow and uphold. Because none did, excluding the several at the appeals level who tried but were outvoted, these judges willfully worked to subvert the new law by refusing to order that the litigant on whose behalf it was enacted, then undergoing a cruel and unusual* execution via forced denial of any and all basic food and water, be kept alive so she could get her chance to have such a wholly necessary new trial. Thus, these judges were in clear violation of the law. Our president should've had them all arrested on the charge of depriving Terri's civil rights under color of law, in accordance with the relevant provisions of United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13. Instead, as it became most clear, he felt that protecting substantial justice for Terri and anyone else like her, as well as taking care that the very law intended to do just that was faithfully executed, was less a concern than protecting his own political assets. His brother the governor of Florida had comparable constitutional and moral obligations as well, but also was unwilling to come to Terri's assistance. This is the most sickening part of all.
The victims include every citizen of the United States, whether they took any interest in Terri's plight or not. The attitude that none of this affects me or it's a private family matter so it's not my concern, when all three branches of both our federal and one state's governments were directly involved, officially issuing very public judgments, laws, and orders which not only affect this one case but set up precedents that in all likelihood will have an immediate bearing on the life and well-being of any citizen who, because of accident, abuse, or age, finds himself similarly incapacitated, is both a selfish and an unhealthy one for members of a free society to have. It is worse than burying one's head in the sand—at least then you'd have some excuse for not seeing what's coming. Even the easy answer of I myself have a living will or advance directive so I'm protected, is now less reassuring given how already one state court has taken the step of accepting unsubstantiated and highly disputed hearsay testimony from an adulterous spouse and two of his close relatives to fill in the blanks where such a will or directive is entirely absent. If present but its terms are not clearly applicable or sufficiently precise in a particular circumstance, thus rendering that instrument an unreliable guide for determining what type and amount of medical services (if any) you might wish to receive should you too become incapable of expressing those wishes yourself, then it follows that your state probate or family court, backed up with this legal precedent, could apply the same cold, dispassionate logic George "I'm Not A God But I Play One In My Courtroom" Greer did in accepting equally untrustworthy evidence to fill in the
blanks live rounds for you. Of course you could make someone else your health care proxy, putting your fate totally in his hands in that event. Just make sure he isn't someone who has much to gain from seeing you dead.
What we have seen, regrettably, is that by allowing any civil court to take your unwitting silence as a tacit grant to make essentially speculative decisions supposedly on your behalf, especially when it is difficult to conclude they are truly in your best interests, you unduly expose yourself to the real and even fatal danger that such court will trample on your fundamental rights. It is why we grant our democratically-elected legislatures all powers to pass laws that protect those rights by specifying what exactly a court may and may not do in any such instance. The latter's jurisdiction and rules of evidence are themselves mandated, not by judges but by law. For these reasons the United States Congress passed a law specifically ordaining and establishing the judicial branch's jurisdiction and its rules of evidence with respect to certain claims regarding Terri's fundamental rights and their protection.
Life, liberty, property, and justice are the rights subject to Congress's enforcement powers against any state's violation of those rights. Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to our constitution explicitly say:
- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Protection of individual rights should, under our founding principle of governance, always outweigh any stubbornly rigid maintenance of separation of powers between its three branches. When judges consider the latter more important, even at the expense of an innocent United States citizen's life, they are saying, in effect, that the individual's constitutional privileges and immunities must give way to the state's powers and procedures whenever the two are competing for government protection. That is, the individual serves the state. This is beyond utter arrogance. It is a betrayal of the public trust afforded those judges, whose oaths are to uphold the principles of the constitution—its substantive guarantees—not merely its procedural mechanisms or doctrines. After paying lip service to Terri's constitutional rights, the sole reason the judges gave for declaring unconstitutional the law intended to protect those very rights, is that it violates the "axiomatic design" of separation of powers. Federal Court Order Denying Terri Schiavo's Parents' Petition for a Rehearing
, March 30, 2005 (PDF format
)**. The message they gave is loud and clear and should gravely disturb every freedom-loving citizen: Your rights come from the generosity of the state, not from the Hand of God. Your servitude is to the former. We have so ordered!
Clearly, Terri's own state had made and enforced laws that were working to abridge her privileges and immunities. That state allowed the appointment of an openly adulterous spouse as her plenary guardian, whose conflicting self-interests included seeing Terri dead so he could officially remarry and thus erase the illegitimacy of children he fathered with another woman while still "married" to Terri. That state neglected to afford her the assistance of any permanent, independent counsel who could bring up these issues in its courts. That state saw nothing wrong at all in allowing members of the "husband's" legal team to argue his case before a presiding judge who received political campaign contributions from all but two of such members. That state, throughout the last ten years, denied her the opportunity of seeking outside the courtroom, any effective treatment or therapy for her condition. That state prohibited, under threat of arrest, any attempt to orally give her even the most basic of liquids after ordering removal of her common feeding tube. That state's executive authority refused to fully protect Terri's federal civil rights. That state, in short, was determined to end Terri's life no matter what. This is among the very things our Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to prevent.
Where are we headed? That's basically up to us. Do we really want judges in our federal court system who believe they have an unquestionable authority to outright ignore or willfully undermine all the powers we have vested in our Congress to pass laws protecting the civil rights of U.S. citizens and setting every federal court's (including much of the Supreme Court's) jurisdiction and rules of evidence, when Congress also has power to not only constitute, ordain, and establish each and every one of those inferior courts but discontinue any or all of them as well? Do we still want to uncritically trust the word of media-based advocates of liberalism (aka "mainstream" editors & lead reporters) about where our fellow citizens stand on these issues, when they were so clearly
wrong untruthful again this time? Do we ever want to see another state probate judge appoint an openly adulterous spouse who openly wants to see his wife dead judicially murdered as her legal guardian, when we would never consider that all right or anywhere near a great idea if we were in her position? Do we somehow want our individual rights ranked below government's procedural structures and mechanisms, when that would turn us all into servants of the state? If you answered yes to all of these then take heart: all your desires here are now the status quo. If you didn't, we have much work ahead of us if we want to change it.
First thing is to cut through and dispel the unbalanced
thinking feelings of radicals and extremists on the left who continue to express screech their enormously glaring misconceptions and stupendous ignorance about states' rights and limited government. (This coming from folk who nominally don't believe in either.) Obviously, governments have no legitimate authority to unjustly harm or murder citizens anymore than I. Despite this fact, the Left wants the public to imagine that they do, taunting anyone who demands federal protection of our individual rights from such harm by a state, with the brilliant rejoinder, "Whatever happened to states' rights?" For one thing, a government—state or federal—has no rights, only powers. Powers that we citizens grant it and have the sole right to take away however and whenever we see fit, up to and including altering or even abolishing its very form:
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Understandable that the ungodly Left gets stuck at that "Creator" part and refuses to read the rest of the document establishing our nation, her principles and ideals
powers do not extend to making any of us suffer as miserably as liberals now normally do, even on their best days—or worse, to murdering a fellow citizen while the Left and its cohorts thoroughly embedded throughout our media work feverishly to convince everyone else that no one can or should ever try to do anything about it.
|“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
|—Federalist, No. 51.
Limited government is another concept leftist folk find difficult to grasp and leaves them in a greater state of confusion than they already are. No doubt they were asleep, or daydreaming about those supersize bottles of patchouli oil they saw in the drug store, at the time their public high schools tried to expose them to it. To refresh their revisionist little memories, limited government is "the basic principle that government is not all-powerful, and that it does only those things that citizens allow it to do." It does not mean a government that is too weak or ineffective to take the actions we allow and intend it to take, the most solemn of which being its provision of safeguards against any violation of our unalienable rights by private or public persons. To put it in public school terms, while we expect government to do well each and every thing we allow it to do, we do not expect or want it to do all things. That's why conservatives seek limited but strong government, one that truly respects and is capable of protecting the rights of individuals. By contrast, the unlimited, bloated, extremely-bureaucratic kind of government which the Left invariably seeks is not only itself inherently weak and ineffective, but such an onerous drain on the resources of citizens who are forced to support it and keep all its multitudinous tendrils propped up, that they and their freedoms become weak and ineffective too.
In about a week the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's office presumably will release the results of its April 1st autopsy on Terri's body, which her husband-in-name-only was able to have shoved into an oven and cremated last Saturday because of a
judge's black-robed henchmen's order. That office allowed no independent observer to witness the autopsy. What we supposedly have is a woman who succumbed to a heart attack fifteen years ago. Will the autopsy produce any evidence of such a catastrophic event—one that, by definition, always leaves permanent damage which requires constant medication such as the blood thinner Coumadin? What we've also been told we have is a woman who was a bulimia victim. Will the results include any evidence of fifteen-year-old dental decay or scarring caused by the stomach acids from repeated bouts of self-induced vomiting? Most disturbing, we allegedly have a woman whose bone scan, taken twelve months after her "collapse," revealed a broken right femur and fractures in her ribs, pelvis, spine and ankle. Will the autopsy report include x-rays that prove or disprove this level of damage?
What we do have is a murdered U.S. citizen. The perpetrator and accomplices are still at-large, free to commit another heinous, barbaric, cold-blooded crime. The several million witnesses to it were unable and/or unwilling to stop it. They each now have a duty and the right to come forward and demand those criminals be restrained and held accountable.
* I have yet to hear of any previous case anywhere in our nation, once known as America, in which an otherwise physically healthy citizen—who breathed on her own, could swallow her own saliva and wasn't in a coma—was for all intents and purposes euthanized in this manner on the bases of a few long-withheld, secondhand recollections about her wishes and of several arguably inadequate evaluations of her medical condition. Should anyone know of such a case, I would be most grateful if you would post its details in the Amens.
** The "Bill of Attainder" argument against the law, bandied about somewhat in the media shortly after its enactment, falls so flat on its face—for the simple reason it demands no punishment without trial or punitive judgment whatsoever against anyone—that not even the federal appeals court took notice of it.
Comments (registered users)