Idea: There is some doubt about the circumstances under which she originally collapsed. Examination of X-rays has been interpreted as indicating injury. Bush should direct the Atty. Gen’l. to declare her a material witness in a case to investigate whether she was the victim of assault and battery. Then, pursuant to this declaration and to protect her as a possible future witness, he should have her removed to a different health care facility where she will be taught to eat by mouth.

The entire fiction that she needs a feeding tube is perpetuated by her husband because it is the only way he can legally have her killed. The illogic goes, “If she will choke if fed by mouth, and if I say she wouldn’t want to be fed by tube, she can’t be fed at all and must be left to die of dehydration.” Once she is off the tube she will be safe.

Another idea: Start a drive for a change of venue in future litigation regarding her custody, which her parents will continue to mount. The reason things have gone this far is that the judge for the geographical region where her husband is careful to keep her is pretty clearly in collusion with the husband’s lawyer. (Really.) I don’t know the legal process for such a change of venue, but I would think the executive branch in Florida could influence it in some way.

Another idea: Immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the judge who has again and again ignored the law and the facts of the case. (E.g. Adultery is against Florida law and should long ago have resulted in the removal of the husband as her legal guardian. E.g. Florida law defines “abuse” of handicapped people to include the refusal to give food and water.)

Many have adduced as evidence supporting starvation, that in her mental state, Ms. Schiavo could not possibly suffer physically or mentally from this act.

Then she cannot possibly suffer physically or mentally from its absence.

Will we, as a civilization, be able to make the same claim?

CBB MD

A1: The governor’s right to grant clemency is contained in Section 8 of the Fla Constitution. Terri’s law is not in the Fla Constitution. Of course, the Constitution is difficult to amend, thus protecting people like Terri from the vagaries of state politics.

A2: The pardoned criminal is seeking to avoid death, whereas it was Terri’s wish that she be allowed to die (according to a court finding based on exhaustive factual findings and a legal standard of clear and convincing evidence).

A4: Even that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. “Clear and convincing” evidence based on the say-so of one witness, with no other evidence to corroborate it, would not have been enough.

A5: Even the unpardoned killer could not have been killed by starvation, which would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment. For Terri, it’s a punishment all right, just not for a crime. Rather’ it’s a punishment for the non-crime of lacking the foresight to leave a written directive stating “please don’t starve me to death even if my adulterous husband claims that’s what I want.” I guess it’s OK to mete out cruel and unusual punishment, as long as the punishment was not for a crime, and therefore isn’t technically considered a punishment.

I am not comfortable with that. I am comfortable with a Governor having a one-time power to stay the effect of such a decision to allow further review of the case.

For a summary of what has been left out of the controversy, see my latest post.

The ruling gives the governor 10 days to