Current Events

News stories which don't fit other categories.

du Toit Misses A Chance To Slap Activist Judges

March 22nd, 2005 | 12:19 AM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Kim du Toit, a man I both respect and sometimes strongly disagree with has finally posted his opinion on the case of Terri Schiavo. His opinion is that Terri is already brain dead and should be “allowed to die.” (Food and water is not medical intervention. If you think it is, try claiming your grocery bill as medical expenses on your next tax return!) Even more importantly, he thinks it’s a constitutional crisis and that Congress is shredding the Constitution to protect Terri.

I agree that it is a constitutional crisis, but I think he is dead wrong on everything else.

Persistent Vegetative State

First, let’s start with one basic fact. Judge Greer has ruled that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State from which she will not recover. In other words, she is brain dead and nature must be allowed to take its course. That ruling is the centerpiece of the firestorm raging all over the internet and in the comments in response to Kim’s piece.

So what is a Persistent Vegetative State? When I started researching the definition, most of what I found was appallingly vague. It almost seemed like Jakie (say the J like a “ch”) and Amos were taking a break in the back 40 one day discussing PVS. “Vell, it’s almost lak a coma, but not quat, don’cha know. Dare eyes sorta open but dey don’ see nothin’.” “Yeah, da laghts iz on but no one’s home, okay?” The most concise definition I found was from this page from the Medical College of Wisconsin.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

In short, a person is not in PVS if they speak or try to speak, swallow, or otherwise respond to their environment beyond simple reflex. There is significant evidence that Terri is actually in fact, not brain dead and that the PVS ruling is not factually correct, including video, evidence from a neurologist who spent 14 hours examining her over a two week period (note: the doctors who claim PVS spent a total of 45 minutes with her, including one who promotes killing Alzheimer’s patients), and sworn affadavits from numerous nurses and aids. Not only is Terri able to interact with her environment, she is also capable of limited speech.

That this single central question is so heavily debated, even among experts, clearly shows that we cannot assume that the issue is settled enough to irreversibly end someone’s life. In fact, as I agrue below, the government (including the federal government) has a duty to err on the side of preserving life.

The Constitutional Side

Why do we even bother with the problems caused by governments? The Declaration of Independence gives us the answer:

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,

Kim (and others) have complained that the government has no right to step in here because it interferes in a marriage. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that spouses often do violate each others’ most basic human rights. That’s why we have domestic violence laws. It’s also obvious that we don’t look the other way when a spouse commits murder. In fact, I think that it’s a given that whenever there is a murder, the spouse is automatically at the top of the suspect list until they are cleared.

Marriage is not a carte blanche for one spouse to do anything they want to another. In fact, The Mrs. (who has also weighed in in the comments) has often written with great eloquence on the problems of domestic violence and the need for women to escape the abusive relationship. (BTW, I’ve agreed with those articles wholeheartedly.) While society recognizes that a marriage relationship is crucial and therefore allows more benefit of the doubt when one spouse appears to be mistreating the other, such leeway is not absolute.

As the Declaration points out, the only reason for the existence of the government — as dangerous as it can become — is to protect the rights of its citizens. In situations where the life of a spouse is being threatened, not only does the government have the right to step in, it has a duty to step in. If the government has no such duty, then we should abolish it immediately and save ourselves a lot of trouble.

Has Michael Schiavo abused Terri? Did he even try to kill her? There have been allegations that he abused her and that there are xrays showing the abuse, that he stalked her, and that he stalked another girlfriend he had after Terri’s injury. There have been reports that he denied her even the most basic of care (refusing to allow brushing her teeth and antibiotics to treat an infection). There have been allegations that she was injected with insulin in an attempt to kill her. It’s obvious that he has not stayed true to his marriage vows in spite of his sworn testimony supporting those vows during the malpractice suit. He has also broken the laws of Florida which require him to make sure Terri gets therapy.

It also seems that Michael may not be motivated solely by the money. Offers of millions of dollars if he just divorces her and returns her care to her parents and offers of absolution from the parents have all been ignored. It is clear that Michael wants her to die. Is it because he is truly certain that Terri wants to die? Or is it possible that he was the cause of Terri’s injury and he’s terrified that she will recover and get him put away for attempted murder? I don’t know for certain which is the case. We do not condemn criminals to death if there is reasonable doubt, why condemn the innocent to death when there is such doubt?

Even if there is no fire there is definitely plenty of smoke. No legitimate fireman would fail to investigate smoke which could indicate a fire. Neither should a legitimate government shirk its duty to investigate questionable circumstances. To my knowledge, no such investigation has taken place. As long as such doubt remains, the government has a duty to protect the life of its only material witness about whether or not Michael may have abused her: Terri Shiavo.

Activist Judges

Here is where I’m really surprised about Kim’s post because he misses the true constitutional crisis. The problem is not the intervention of the federal government, it’s the complete lack of accountability of judges which is the real crisis.

Both the legislature and the executive branches of the Florida state government have opposed the rulings of Judge Greer. Yet, his will has prevailed so far. Why? Because judges have been assumed to have final authority. In what was supposed to be a government system of checks and balances, there is no check or balance on the judge, not even the law. (Here is a petition of impeachment listing 38 specific charges of either violating or failing to uphold very specific laws. Update: More on broken laws.)

Kim himself has railed time and again against activist judges violating the Constitution, violating laws, and creating their own laws in violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. The principle behind those rants is sound. Judges are empowered only to judge whether or not a law was broken and set the penalties when they are. That principle must be held even when a judge’s ruling supports a personal preference.

When judges ignore the laws they are sworn to upheld, they must be held accountable and punished for their actions. The appropriate avenue for such punishment is impeachment. It is the responsibility of the legislature to impeach a judge when he violates duly established laws. While such a move should never be taken lightly, to fail to do so produces tyranny — a tyranny of the men in the black robes who answer to no one, not even the supreme laws of this country. Judges who are not held to the simple and practical standards of obeying the laws and the separation of powers eventually become a law unto themselves, trampling our system of government and the rights of everyone under their power. When that happens, we are forced to turn once again to the Declaration of Independence:

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.

I certainly do not want to engage in such a duty. And for all his cussing and spitting on the topic, I sincerely doubt Kim is any more anxious to engage in a shooting war than I am. Yet by choosing the side of the activist judge in this case — rather than smacking him down as Kim usually does — I’m afraid Kim is helping to push us closer to just such a convulsion.

The Rush to Spill Innocent Blood

March 19th, 2005 | 01:32 AM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Well, it’s started. The legal system has begun the muder of Terri Marie Shiavo by order of Judge Greer. Early this afternoon the parents of Terri Shiavo were ordered out of her room so her starvation could begin.

If you are unaware of the facts of the case, here are a some links you must visit to understand why I call this atrocity murder:

Over at the evangelical outpost, Joe Carter posted his own take on judges playing god. I was unsurprised but profoundly disturbed to see the depth of willful ignorance of the facts displayed by the liberals who posted comments. They cheerfully agree with the actions of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer who appear to be on a hell-bent-for-leather push to put an end to Terri’s life as soon as absolutely possible.

That attitude reminded me of a passage in the Bible. (Many things do. That’s what happens when you study scripture for years!)

My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We shall find all kinds of precious wealth, We shall fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed blood.

(Prov. 1:10-16, NASB)

There is a rush on. It’s a rush to shed the blood of Terri Shiavo and others like her before they can be stopped. And what crime has she committed? If you compare how judge Greer is treating her compared to death row inmates, she has committed the ultimate crime: she has allowed herself to become disabled.

So now we have the inmates on death row who get so many appeals that some die of old age. But when someone commits the “crime” of becoming inconvenient or disabled, then our legal system practically falls all over itself in its rush to kill the suspect patient. This is the direct opposite of God’s commands.

The Bible teaches that we are to care for those who are weak:

This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(James 1:27, NASB)

On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

(1Cor. 12:22-26, NIV)

“Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Matt. 25:44-46, NASB)

When I recalled these scriptures I finally realized exactly why I’ve been in a rage all afternoon. The judge (charged by the Bible with upholding the righteous and punished the wicked (Leviticus 19:15, Romans 13:3-4)) and the husband (changed by the Bible with protecting “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) who is his wife and giving up his life for her (Eph. 5:25-29)) have both violated their most sacred trusts and have rushed to commit an act of pure evil. There are even those who are cheering them on while willfully ignoring all evidence that killing Terri is an act of evil.

If you have not done so yet, check out the action items on terrisfight.org and BlogsforTerri and take action. Remember, all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Update: Here is a timeline of events in the case.

The Science And Christianity Showcase

March 14th, 2005 | 04:26 PM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Allthings2all has put together a Science and Christianity Showcase of posts from various blogs which explore the intersection of science and Christianity. The topic of evolution was excluded for this round because it was covered recently in Vox Apologia VII. Go read up on how Christianity and science relate to each other.

Legalized Murder: Terri Schiavo

February 22nd, 2005 | 01:02 PM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

The “Men In Black” have once again stolen the legitimate authority of lawmakers. This time, they’ve legalized the murder of Terri Schiavo. That drawn out, cold blooded murder via the legal system begins today. I simply cannot express the rage and powerlessness I feel over the callous disregard for the most precious and priceless treasure in the universe: a single human life.

If the “Men In Black” can do this to Terri, they can do it to anyone. Who will be next? One of your parents? One of your children? You?

The “Philly 4” Are Free!

February 18th, 2005 | 10:23 AM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

WorldNetDaily is reporting that a judge has dropped the charges against the 4 adults of the “Philly 5”. They were charged with crimes for protesting at a homosexual pride “Outfest” event held in Philadelphia this past October.

The teenage girl is being tried separately as a juvenile. Her case is still pending.

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech, a judge in Philadelphia today dismissed all criminal charges against four Christians who were arrested for evangelizing at an outdoor homosexual event.

“We are pleased and relieved for our clients that justice has finally been done in the criminal system, and though it is apparently slow and rusty, the system still works,” Fahling said in a statement.

But that is not the end of the story. Consider this:

“This ends only the first chapter in the ‘Philadelphia 11’ saga. The next chapter is federal action against the officers and city of Philadelphia. We are still calling for the Department of Justice to investigate the corruption and profound abuse of power that we have seen in Philadelphia.”

Amen! The “Philly 11” should never have been arrested in the first place. Just that action alone violated their right of free speech. Such abuses of power must not be permitted to happen again.