Both sides in Schiavo dispute await judge's hearing

 

By VICKIE CHACHERE

Associated Press Writer

 

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- The parents of Terri Schiavo asked a judge to reinsert the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube Monday, following an extraordinary political fight that consumed both chambers of Congress and prompted the president to rush back to the White House.

 

An attorney for Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, arrived at federal district court in Tampa and filed a request for an emergency injunction to keep their daughter fed.

 

It was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, who was nominated to the court in 1999 by President Clinton. He set a hearing for Monday afternoon, according to a court Web site.

 

David Gibbs II, attorney for the parents, said the judge had sent a message saying he was reviewing the filings in the case.

?

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued an order saying it would not intervene before Whittemore had a chance to consider the case. The Atlanta court had been asked to consider issuing the injunction under an appeal brought by the Schindlers on Friday.

 

Earlier Monday, the House, following a move by the Senate, passed a bill to let the parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo's life by reinserting her feeding tube. President Bush signed the measure less than an hour later.

 

Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president were intervening in the contentious right-to-die battle. He has fought for years with his wife's parents over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive through the feeding tube.

 

"This is a sad day for Terri. But I'll tell you what: It's also is a sad day for everyone in this country because the United States government is going to come in and trample all over your personal, family matters," he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday.

 

Michael Schiavo has not responded to repeated interview requests from The Associated Press.

 

The lawsuit alleges a series of rights violations, including that Terri Schiavo's religious beliefs were being infringed upon, that the removal of the feeding tube violated her rights and that she was not provided an independent attorney to represent her interests.

 

Outside the hospice where his daughter entered her fourth day without food or water, Bob Schindler told reporters "I'm numb, I'm just totally numb. This whole thing, it's hard to believe it."

 

A shout of joy was heard from the crowd outside the hospice when news of the House bill's passage came. Among those cheering was David Bayly, 45, of Toledo, Ohio: "I'm overjoyed to see the vote and see Terri's life extended by whatever amount God gives her."

 

Only a few protesters milled about outside the hospice Monday morning in the hours leading up to the federal court hearing; some said they were leaving to get some sleep and planned to return in the afternoon. A few people appeared outside the Tampa courthouse, saying they were praying for Whittemore.

 

The 41-year-old woman's feeding tube was removed Friday on a Florida judge's order. Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted - as has happened twice before, once on a judge's order and once after Gov. Jeb Bush signed "Terri's Law," which was later declared unconstitutional.

 

In Tallahassee on Monday, Gov. Bush praised Congress for its "extraordinary action" in the Schiavo matter and rejected criticism that the legislation represented an unwarranted federal intrusion in a state case.

 

"They're not overruling any decision in asking federal to review the decision. I think that's more than appropriate," he said, adding that efforts would continue to find compromise on state legislation to protect Schiavo.

 

The governor said he was in frequent contact during the weekend with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., as the federal legislation moved forward.

 

George Felos, a lawyer for Michael Schiavo, did not return repeated phone messages seeking comment Monday. The voicemail box of George Greer, the Florida circuit judge who presides over the case, was full and didn't accept messages.

 

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

 

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment.

 

Bob Schindler visited his daughter late Sunday and said he noticed the effects of dehydration on her. He said she appeared to be getting tired, but eventually responded to his teasing by making a face at him.

 

"It tells us she's still with us," he said.

 

Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, said he spent Sunday afternoon with his brother and Terri at the hospice, but Terri did not move or make any noises. "Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination," he said.

 

The bill passed in Congress applies only to Schiavo and would allow a federal court to review the case. The House passed the bill on a 203-58 vote after calling lawmakers back for an emergency Sunday session.

 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., argued passionately against the bill on the House floor. She told NBC's "Today" show early Monday that "we thumbed our nose at the Constitution last night ... and it's just wrong."

 

The Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote. President Bush cut short a visit to his Texas ranch to return to the White House.

 

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.

 

Hopefully one will have a video stream

WFLA.com

Tampa Bay's 10 News

WTVT.com

ABC Action News

 

Hopefully one will offer some audio reports

970 WFLA

1040 WWBA

Bay News 9

CNN Radio

OK, starting at 3 PM WTSP in Tampa Bay will have live coverage streamed over http://www.tampabays10.com/news/live.asp

 

You may see the radar picture until they start their coverage.

I don't know what's right here, but I think it needs closure. So, whatever they decide just let it stand.

I agree with the 'rock

I am just covering it for you guys in a convenient newsgathering thread. I will not take sides on this issue.

Here is a copy of the Terri Schiavo Bill passed last night.

 

FindLaw link

I'm going to table for NORML. A summary of the proceedings would be sweet, including if any protestors outside.

Schiavo v. Schiavo, et al, Notice of Hearing

 

Schiavo v. Greer, et al

 

Only protest so far is a banner outside the courthouse displayed by two protestors saying "Stop Killing" in a blood red color with the markings of a struggle in the "blood" splatters around the letters. Next time the cameraman closes in, or if I find a picture, I will post it.

 

Some protestors in wheelchairs carrying signs have arrived in front of the Federal Courthouse in Tampa.

 

WTSP will start Around The Bay at 4 PM, so they should have anchored coverage. Until then, all we have is the camera and reporter in front of the courthouse.

This might be an extremely simplistic view of things but...why doesn't the husband just divorce her and let her parents and family take care of her? If they are willing to make that sacrifice why can't the husband let them? Why is it so important for him to let her die?

 

:mischief2

Yeah, it should be no problem to get Terry to sign the paper. :thumbdown

So are you saying they cannot be divorced due to her inabilities to sign the papers of consent?

 

Why can't the husband just move on...let the parents take care of her.

 

What is his motivation?

The leading reason is if she does not die, then he cannot keep the civil lawsuit settlement monies. If they divorce, he must pay it all back. He was allowed by Judge Greer to use the money to pay for litigation to kill her, and therefore he has little property to sell to pay back the monies.

The leading reason is if she does not die, then he cannot keep the civil lawsuit settlement monies. If they divorce, he must pay it all back. He was allowed by Judge Greer to use the money to pay for litigation to kill her, and therefore he has little property to sell to pay back the monies.

716998[/snapback]

 

I should have figured $$$ was involved in some way. What a shame. I guess that was why he was offerred the 1 million to let her live.

Hearing ended moments ago. Still awaiting news on it.

 

News may be forthcoming. People are streaming out of the courthouse.

 

Recess called, may still be decided today.

 

Court wants additional information, that is being provided to the court.

Why is it so important for him to let her die?

716978[/snapback]

 

 

Because he says that is what she said she would want. It is also what 12 court rulings have said she would have wanted.

 

The question is why are these "pro-life" people forcing her to stay alive in a situation that she would want to pass on in peace? Because the parents don't want it? The parents said that they would not want the feeding tube removed even if Terri told them pointe blank before any of this happend that she would want a feeding tube removed if she were in this exact situation.

[sarcasm]Clintonista Lanny Davis was just on MSNBC arguing for Schiavo's right to live and a fair trial. Is hell freezing over?[/sarcasm]

You know Cape, Democrats and Republicans CAN break from their party. Its not illegal, but for some people that may be hard to understand.

You know Cape, Democrats and Republicans CAN break from their party. Its not illegal, but for some people that may be hard to understand.

717144[/snapback]

I realize that, maybe I should put on sarcasm tags. Several Democrats voted for the bill last night and several Republicans voted against the bill last night. However, Lanny Davis is one of those Democrats who rarely goes outside the Clinton party line.

You know Cape, Democrats and Republicans CAN break from their party. Its not illegal, but for some people that may be hard to understand.

717144[/snapback]

I realize that, maybe I should put on sarcasm tags. Several Democrats voted for the bill last night and several Republicans voted against the bill last night. However, Lanny Davis is one of those Democrats who rarely goes outside the Clinton party line.

717145[/snapback]

 

You realized that the bill passed unanimously in the senate right without protest. That means no democrat voted against it.

 

The thinking on it seems to be, let the republicans have this and republicans will lay off the gay marriage issue. Plus many people believe even if a court case is heard the outcome won't be any different than the other 12 cases there is no apparent reason to.

 

This is seen as a republican issue no matter how many democrats vote for it and all the polls I have seen today show about a 60-30 split of Americans against what happend last night.

I don't see what this case has to do with Gay Marriage.

I don't see what this case has to do with Gay Marriage.

717148[/snapback]

 

Politics is all about trading and bargaining.

 

Politicians and legislators trade votes all the time. "You vote for my bill I'll vote for yours" kind of stuff. So the sentiments seem to be if the democrats give the republicans this, this which appeases their religious base, that they will not persue the gay marriage ban.

 

Its not too hard to believe. Parties bargain like that over legislation.

I know they bargain, but I don't see any link from this case to Gay Marriage.

I know they bargain, but I don't see any link from this case to Gay Marriage.

717153[/snapback]

 

Then you just don't get it.

I know they bargain, but I don't see any link from this case to Gay Marriage.

717153[/snapback]

 

Then you just don't get it.

717165[/snapback]

I get it, but I doubt Democrats could use this case as leverage in getting a bargain done for gay marriage. Why would the Republicans give the Dems anything when they are the majority and they had the votes?

 

I don't hold much of a position one way or another in this case, but what you state makes no sense. Maybe something with Social security may be used to bargain with gay marriage, but this is really insignificant in the scheme of Washington Politics.

I know they bargain, but I don't see any link from this case to Gay Marriage.

717153[/snapback]

 

Then you just don't get it.

717165[/snapback]

I get it, but I doubt Democrats could use this case as leverage in getting a bargain done for gay marriage. Why would the Republicans give the Dems anything when they are the majority and they had the votes?

717166[/snapback]

 

Because many legislative republicans don't really want to persue gay marriage bans. Bush used it to get the religious vote out for him, he promised it, and has not delievered on it.I am not sure Bush's real stance on it, but he promised he would persue it, so you think the religious people who voted for him for that reason are happy right about now? Most Americans don't want to outlaw Gay Marriage it would be something very unpopular to persue, from the last I saw something in the ballpark of 70-20 opposed to making it something in the constitution.

 

So if the democrats keep republicans happy they will ignore it, but the republicans will hang it over their head for now. So they give them this, let them appease the religious people so it gives that religious base something to grab onto so they won't be demanding the gay marriage initiative to grab onto.